The science of humanity

Today, in one of my seminars, the whole discussion somehow drifted into this problem in Estonian society that sciences (physics, chemistry etc, the 'real' thing) is much better funded and propagated by the government than the humanities (such as my own field of study). There is constant complain in the media that there are not enough science students and not enough science at schools.

First of all, I must admit that I don’t know much from science myself. I remember I liked the equations in chemistry but I wouldn’t be able to solve them anymore and all I can remember from my physics class is the teacher shouting at me “Sadam, you root of all evil!” as soon as I walked through the door. Nevertheless, I think that science is very important and very interesting and I have huge amount of respect towards people who are involved.

Having said that, I believe that humanities are just as important for progress in any given society as is science. It is the task of science to ensure that progress and to test new ideas and whatnot but it is the humanities, literature, philosophy etc, that give meaning to everything that science has achieved. It is those soft fields of study that provide us, humans, with value systems and moral conscience.

The question in science often seems to be where to draw the line. Genetics is an immensely popular field in Estonia at the moment. Most probably (I can’t be bothered to actually check), it is also the field that receives the most money from different administrations. Yet, genetics is a very controversial field of study as well. All this research done with stem cells has called for quite a heated debate. Surely, there are numerous reasons why we should do that; think of all the diseases that we might be able the cure or prevent. But the question remains, how soon that we are able to change the human genome? What’s the etiquette in that situation?

I think that this is the situation where those soft ‘sciences’ come to play their part. I am a student of English language and literature. Although I often ask myself the question that several people ask, “What can an English major actually do?”, I still very much love what I study. One thing that studying literature has given me is the ability to have a critical view of what is going around me. I believe that it is the role of literature, ethics, philosophy etc to ensure that there is still some humanity left in humans.

More and more technology is taking over our lives and some times I feel that there is a lack of human touch in things. I’ve come to hate social networks: they are meant to make communication between friends (or ‘friends’) easier and faster but in reality, they seem to kill the actual communication between friends. You can now consider your social duty to be done by clicking ‘Like’ button on Facebook. I know, I know… I’m all over the social networking sites myself. I click the ‘Like’ button as well. God knows how much I’m in love with Twitter. And finally, instead of just talking to my friends, I’m sitting in my small room and writing this moaning blog. But I must say, I’m really close to erasing my accounts on these Internet sites because the lack of communication and humanity is becoming quite unbearable. I feel that the meaning of things is being sucked out by those horrible networks.

If we lose touch with humanity through these impersonal sites, how long till the horrible settings of dystopian fictions become a reality? Maybe I’m pushing it too far but sometimes one gets weary… Or possibly, I’m living in the wrong century.

(Inspired by Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. If in Tartu on Friday, May 7 then come to UT library café at 3pm and I’ll rant about similar things for about 3 minutes and more intelligent people will talk more on Atwood and her works)