For every object in existence in this world, we can choose to act through one of three methods: consume, destroy, or create. Consumption is using the outputs of creation. Destruction is eliminating the creation itself. Creation is the act of creating something so that there can be consumption or destruction. An everyday example is TV. Consumption is watching TV programs. Destruction is physically destroying the TV or ensuring that no TV broadcasts are made. Creation is producing a new TV program or building a TV.
From a macroscopic perspective, the percentage of time allocated to each of these three actions in a society is a good indicator of the society's well-being. In the worst possible dictatorial society such as North Korea, the only acts permissible are consumption and destruction. Creation is carefully restricted to those in power and strongly discouraged by force otherwise. In such a society, progress will be slow if at all. Indeed, this can be extended to a generality: For any society, if creation is not greater than consumption or destruction, then the society cannot progress.
The macroscopic relevance of this rule is built on a fundamental level upon the microscopic acts of the individual. If an individual consumes or destroys more than he or she produces, this individual is creating a negative balance in society. For an individual to exist in this world, he or she is either selfish, misguided, or lazy to presume that the individual should feel entitled getting things by doing things of lesser value. A rich heir that squanders away his inherited wealth has demolished the culmination of the value of the creation of his forefathers. By logical extension of the counterpart, the most worthwhile individual will be one who strives to be at least one step above the ladder than his or her predecessors.
Some may object to this simple analysis by stating that not everything which is created has value. Aren't some creations dangerous and harmful? Is it not better to create nothing than something if more harm will arise due to its creation? Unfortunately, creation for the most part seems to be a double-edged sword. With few exceptions (such as gas chambers), any product or service created can both be served for good or bad. For instance, just consider
- Nuclear bomb versus nuclear energy
- GPS satellites for military surveillance and missile targeting versus ensuring that you do not get lost
- Rockets for military use versus rockets to travel to space
- Viruses concoted to kill people versus medicine developed to cure diseases
Since the good or bad usage of technology is impossible for us to predict, we cannot stop all progress just because of the possibility of something being used in the wrong way. This is not to say that we shouldn't be careful. To be noted is that in general for a technology, the greater the potential for good, also the greater the potential for bad.
Another valid counterargument is that not all individuals can create more than they consume. Consider a long-term hospital patient who is suffering from a debilitating illness. Is that person not entitled to be supported, i.e. consume more than create? The answer here seems to cross from the mechanistic into the moralistic. Actually, there is no such distinction. One merely has to observe the past history of the individual and his or her present state of action assuming that the individual still has faculty of mind and body. If even at this stage, the individual has the brimming energy to go do something or if the individual has demonstrated such tendency in the past, then the current state is but a temporary one.
More counterarguments can certainly be brought up and I'll be happy to address them.
No comments:
Post a Comment