بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Assalamu Alaikum,
I had read recently a book entitled, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes. The book was a historical account of the events that led up to the making and use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were many social, political and ethical conflicts/themes addressed in the book and one to really think about (in terms of chemistry) is the ends vs. the means.
In the book, there was a constant pull between the ethics of making the atomic bomb (because it can destroy everything in a couple mile radius) and the justification of using it to end the war sooner and ‘save more American lives’. Personally, I still don’t see the need to use the bomb, but the conflict pulled me back to think a bit more broadly:
*Are the negative impacts and damage to the global environment justification for researching advancements in chemistry?*
For example, the research in atomic energy (not for the use of the atomic bomb) requires tons of coal to be burned to fuel laboratories, barrels of gasoline to transport chemical materials and waste, a crazy water supply, and loads of materials to make machines, etc. etc. This does not include the use of atomic energy to make generators or bombs, but to simply research it for the sake of science.
If the intended end result is to help improve human being’s standard of living, in what people perceive is the most efficient way of using environmental resources, does it make it okay?
If yes, then wouldn’t that be kind of be counter-intuitive at some point? You are using more resources to research ways to use less of them. Or in the name of science, we can destroy the world. That means that ultimately, researching science in itself is an ethical decision. (Although it is an amoral subject.)
If no, then would we say science has a limit? That after using too many resources to research things, that we have to simply stop? What if by trashing so many resources we come across the cure for cancer? By stopping the study of science, could one argue that we are ‘losing more lives’?
I don’t know. My logic can be completely wrong, but I don’t see any major holes. But it is something to think about. Until I figure out the answer, I’ll just have to settle with being more efficient with what I have, rather than being excessive with my resources in lab.
