Science: Shaw famously remarked once that Science never solves a problem without creating ten more. Science indeed has made the world an easier place, but an easier place to kill and destroy lives. With humans evolving into more and better equipped mercenaries, the probability of realising the dream of peace is on the decline. The world has moved from swords and spears to hydrogen and atom bombs. It is possible today to wipe out cities and cities with a single trigger. It is argued that while nuclear power, which is considered the single most devastating ‘gift’ of science to mankind can be harnessed for constructive use. For once, fair enough. But the implications of trusting a power that can ignite the greed of any violent element to misuse can be hazardous. When the former US president Dwight D. Eisenhower talked about how nuclear power can be seen as a potential factor to prevention of wars, he probably did not pay attention to the repercussions it might have if such an attack was to come from an unidentified power wreaking havoc upon a country thus leading to a war gone haywire. Granted that the steps which have been taken ever since to achieve this are commendable in respect to the problems that have come up in adversary fashion against them but the problem is that the world still stands at the same point, even worse, and is staring at an even more grave human calamity. There is nothing science can do to solve this problem it seems. The need is to move forward because science is not the answer.
Coming out of the realm of bloodshed and war that science seems to have fostered, an easier take on the topic of world problem is being taken by the author.
What is the problem with the world? Why can’t nations be satisfied with what they have. An interesting example may help us understand this.
In Chemistry, there is a phenomenon that deals with outcomes of a reaction-
A + B –> C
Since A and B together make up C and if even one of them gets depleted, the reaction stops and no further quantity of C can be produced. It is of the interest to find out here which reactant, whether A or B is the limiting reagent, i.e. which of them is lesser in quantity that is not allowing the desired quantity of product to be formed. Also it is deducted which of the reactants is in excess, i.e. which remains even when the other reactant has been used up. It is assumed here that A is more in quantity than B. Now a fascinating debate can be pulled between the two reactants here. A may argue that B is the ‘limiting reagent’, that it puts a constraint in the production process. At the same time, B may argue that B is not the limiting reagent as A says and that A is the excess reagent, which being more in quantity remains after the reaction and is wrongfully blaming B. A never ending ‘war’ may ensue between the two but thankfully a saviour comes to play. It is determined or set that what quantity of the product C is needed to be produced by the concerned reaction. Now if before achieving the desired amount of product, the reaction stops then B may very well be termed as the limiting reagent. But if the required quantity of C is produced and still some amount of A is left, then it is the excess reagent. The final goal of the exercise being undertaken thus decides the role the participants play in it. The same is true for the tangible world of we live in. In absence of a determined goal, one society keeps blaming the other that it is exploitive and overconsuming in nature while the latter argues that the former is indolent in nature and is not living up to its true potential due to the former has to beer its burden. The trouble here is again the lack of a known goal. Should humans be using up all there is provided to them and try to dominate others who don’t believe so? Are those who seek a content and non-dominating role in the world wrong in believing so? The author can very well give his opinion in a downright firm fashion but this is not such an easy question to answer. The whole world is fighting over a similar debate and all are trying to justify their own said quantity of the product, in that justifying their actions
There is thus another lesson to learn here from such a small concept of science that we need to work towards a goal that the whole world believes to be adequate and desirable. The climb to such a task is high, but the view would surely be great.
Coming out of the realm of bloodshed and war that science seems to have fostered, an easier take on the topic of world problem is being taken by the author.
What is the problem with the world? Why can’t nations be satisfied with what they have. An interesting example may help us understand this.
In Chemistry, there is a phenomenon that deals with outcomes of a reaction-
A + B –> C
Since A and B together make up C and if even one of them gets depleted, the reaction stops and no further quantity of C can be produced. It is of the interest to find out here which reactant, whether A or B is the limiting reagent, i.e. which of them is lesser in quantity that is not allowing the desired quantity of product to be formed. Also it is deducted which of the reactants is in excess, i.e. which remains even when the other reactant has been used up. It is assumed here that A is more in quantity than B. Now a fascinating debate can be pulled between the two reactants here. A may argue that B is the ‘limiting reagent’, that it puts a constraint in the production process. At the same time, B may argue that B is not the limiting reagent as A says and that A is the excess reagent, which being more in quantity remains after the reaction and is wrongfully blaming B. A never ending ‘war’ may ensue between the two but thankfully a saviour comes to play. It is determined or set that what quantity of the product C is needed to be produced by the concerned reaction. Now if before achieving the desired amount of product, the reaction stops then B may very well be termed as the limiting reagent. But if the required quantity of C is produced and still some amount of A is left, then it is the excess reagent. The final goal of the exercise being undertaken thus decides the role the participants play in it. The same is true for the tangible world of we live in. In absence of a determined goal, one society keeps blaming the other that it is exploitive and overconsuming in nature while the latter argues that the former is indolent in nature and is not living up to its true potential due to the former has to beer its burden. The trouble here is again the lack of a known goal. Should humans be using up all there is provided to them and try to dominate others who don’t believe so? Are those who seek a content and non-dominating role in the world wrong in believing so? The author can very well give his opinion in a downright firm fashion but this is not such an easy question to answer. The whole world is fighting over a similar debate and all are trying to justify their own said quantity of the product, in that justifying their actions
There is thus another lesson to learn here from such a small concept of science that we need to work towards a goal that the whole world believes to be adequate and desirable. The climb to such a task is high, but the view would surely be great.
Takhallus-e-Haqeeqat 