p If we evaluate science independently of the process of verification and of the dissemination of scientific truths among scholars we may catch a glimpse of science in isolation from 57 moral categories proper. This will offer a perspective on science as such, in its ‘pure” form and in abstraction from its human origins.
p Given such an approach science and morality represent only potentials for activity and in this sense possess a measure of mutual independence. Such mutual independence may be preserved even given activity, but only that which remains within the confines of mental activity. Both scientific analysis and moral evaluation of one’s own or of others’ activities may be carried on independently of each other, offering the scientist the opportunity of finding gratification or torment in the search for truth, and the moralist the same possibility in his reflections of morals. But even at this point we may observe the outlines of the field upon which science and morality may meet. Testimony in support of this is offered by the life of the scientist, tor whom scientific truth serves as the source of moral tribulations stemming from confrontations with the dogma of faith which arise as he becomes aware of the truth. Another example—the activities of ideologues and of those who apply “scientific” barbarism, occupied with the development of scientific methods for mass extermination. Examples of the opposite type may also be cited, when the search for truth exerts an ennobling influence upon the scientist by evoking in him a sense of revulsion towards evil and tyranny in any form.
p Emerging from the "intellectual incubator" to the sphere of practical activity science and morality acquire a particular position. Activity turns science into a productive force and the moral elements of consciousness into moral codes. These codes are powerful factors in the spiritual unification of a society.
p At the core of the activity which actualizes morality lies human interrelations. Moral factors are demonstrated only through people and have vital import only in terms of human interactions.
p At the core of the activity which carries scientific truth into life we may also locate direct human interrelations. This latter, however, is not an indispensable condition. Truth, codified in the corresponding fashion, is also realized in activity without the participation of the living brain. Truth (in the form of information) may be deposited in machines which in a number of instances have successfully replaced thought processes and duplicated the specialized labour of the individual. Scientific truth as such is not necessarily the product of the human mind; it may be the product of the thinking machine" which imitates the subconscious and intuitive mechanisms underlying human 58 thought processes. These inanimate store-houses of knowledge are capable of drawing upon their own “knowledge”, accumulated in memory banks, in the search for "scientific truths”, and capable as well of borrowing from each other, from accumulated “knowledge” and from the solutions founded upon this knowledge. A system of cybernetic computers has already been operationalized in which the units are mutually complementary and provide each other with information and mathematical solutions. Further, robots, proceeding from the “knowledge” deposited in them, are capable of producing things, that is to say, of being an active transforming force. Their possibilities in this sphere are quite substantial, and robots will probably be employed by mankind on a wide scale in the future, in particular in research far under the crust of the earth or in the “colonization” of planets presenting formidable barriers to human habitation. For this purpose we will create entire complexes of self-programming and selfregulating robots capable of simulating researchers and "workers and of reproducing themselves and the necessary ancillary installations.
p Such an instance would seem to bear witness to the fact that science is in principle capable of "tearing away" not only from humans but also from human society and might thus be examined in isolation from these ties. Indeed, let us propose the following chain of events: humans with the aid of science and social labour create robots and then complexes of robots. These complexes with the aid of the information deposited in them and of "social labour" develop new scientific truths and create new productive forces as well as ... organic matter capable of evolution and the transformation over time into thinking beings, discovering scientific truths and producing ... robots.
p In this entire chain of suppositions, elaborated not only by science-fiction writers but by scientists as well, there is one detail which bears directly upon the problem of science and morality.
p No matter how unlimited the possibilities suggested by robots, they are in fact artificially organized matter which can originally emerge only as a result of the efforts of the living mind and in response to us needs. As far as the living mind is concerned, it emerges spontaneously from either “inanimate” or animate—but in no case thinking—matter. This mind is a specific feature of life, its highest manifestation.
p Thus truth is manifested in activity in both an unmediated fashion—through human interrelations, and indirectly, 59 through certain devices implementing the connection: man—machine—man. In distinction from the living mind the electronic brain, in carrying out a normal function, may remain free of conflict with living intelligence. On the other hand it may, as a result of the capacities for free activity embedded in its mechanisms, provide recommendations which would have the effect of disunifying, oppressing or intellectually impoverishing human beings—in sum, objectively antihumanistic projects. However, this arbitrary behaviour on the part of a machine would not bear an immoral character, for morality defines only conscious relations between human beings. It is another matter if the "immoral actions" of the machine are pre-programmed by a human individual, that is to say are consciously directed by him. The fact that the executor of these activities is a machine does not divest the individual of moral responsibility for the consequences. Thus emerges the problem of moral responsibility for activities implemented by the tools of technology but governed by human beings.
p At first glance the thought is a trivial one. When an automobile under the control of a reckless driver runs over a pedestrian, it is the driver rather than the car’s engine who is judged by the laws of the courts and of morality. In a more complex situation, however, when a cybernetic machine exerts pressure on the psyche of the human individual, the question loses its triviality. It turns into the massive and complex problem of the moral principles underlying the progress of civilization.
p The reproduction in practice by the machine of certain features of the human being as a unique biological entity has permitted science to open the door to the world of human “doubles”, capable of immeasurably enriching human life. Drawn into the spinning gyre of new problems by rapid scientific and technological progress, man is no longer in a position to get by without these “doubles” not because of laziness but simply because his own biological capacities are limited. Although the “double” is but an assistant in complex tasks, an “appliance” added to the human intellect, it is capable" of competing in a number of spheres of human activity which are accessible, customary and dear to humans as “human” activities.
p Having opened the door to human “doubles”, science has also closed some doors giving access to certain types of production and professions, labelling them objectively unnecessary. These occupations only recently seemed to be 60 permanent features of the landscape and provided work tor many people.
p At first glance this would seem to constitute no particular danger since new professions and new opportunities for the application of one’s energies are emerging. However, the current developments in science and technology are demonstrating that professional “obsolescence” is in fact gaining speed. In turn the prognosis for the augmentation of professions by means of increasingly narrow specialization does not present an optimistic picture. The narrower the specialization the more rapidly obsolescence sets in. Also directly connected with the narrowness of specialization are the possibilities, of substituting a machine for the given specialist and the dwindling distance separating the life span of a given profession and the period of training required to learn it. We observe the beginnings of what may be called the pursuit of disappearing professions. The employee is beginning to experience a feeling of being "perpetually late" for the tram of time. In an antagonistic society we even note the emerging problem of the "superfluous man”. Such a perspective is not merely the play of science-fiction writers but has become the theme of sociological research, a theme offering no easy solutions.
p To this stew has been added the spice of reflections on the feasibility of displacing the activities of large segments of the population with robots.
p This fare naturally suggests to the unsophisticated mind a rather disturbing question: why after all is such progress on the part of civilization necessary, to whose benefit is it directed?
p At this point we observe that people lacking a strong background in scientific philosophy and a firm grip upon reality begin to cast suspicious glances at the promises made by scientists concerning the wonderful long-range prospects for the future and to look uneasily back at the past: wasn’t it much better then? We hear the nihilistic utterance being whispered: "Apres moi le deluge."
Of course we have deliberately applied the paint a bit thickly, but, we think you’ll agree, the canvas is not entirely remote from reality. Indeed if we were to look more closely at the current of barren nihilism confronting progressive forces in the world today, couldn’t we pinpoint as its source not only social causes but also a certain contribution stemming from the negative spinoff of insufficiently thought-out progress in science?
Notes