Don’t bring a knife to gun fight.

Science is what has brought us to where we are today. But it doesn’t progress by itself. It relies on research funded by mutual interest in political, economic, and or religious gain ( Harari, pg.272). Scientific discoveries led to the development of empire and capitalism. The scientific successes that propelled empires were those in the military and geographic realm. This led empires with superior technologies to conquer less advanced peoples. A very prevalent example of this in the modern era is the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This led Japan to surrender immediately. This event had great political and fiscal interests. First of all, this showed the world how powerful the United States were. Also it assured the American people that the government didn’t take an attack on U.S. soil lightly. The years of research and testing that was needed to develop the atom bomb was funded tax dollars. The U.S. government had a fiscal responsibility to deliver the bomb. A less common example of scientific advancement in warfare is the First Opium War. This was fought between Britain and China. Britain had “ wonder weapons” which included steamboats, artillery rockets, and rapid-fire rockets (Harari, pg. 326). These scientifically advanced weapons were no match for the cocky Chinese. This enabled Britain to acquire Hong Kong which expanded their empire. 

Progressive thinking has been the main contributor to humans becoming the superior species. But when will progression turn to regression? It intrigues me how Harari toys with the idea that Humanism is our most prominent religion. It gets me thinking how and when will we become to progressive for our own good? I think that once artificial intelligence becomes a widely used form of technology, people will start to question if we have gone to far in technological advancements. From this, I am eager to see what the future holds and how people will proceed to live.

One thought on “Don’t bring a knife to gun fight.”

  1. Your response to the second question intrigues me; what do you define as regression? It seems to me the progress is usually a label that can only be applied retrospectively, so the “direction” of a society can only be determined by those that come after. You use the example of nuclear bombs used during World War II – do those count as a regression? What about the advancements of the technology that have happened since then? It’s interesting to contemplate how we decide what progress actually is.

Leave a Reply