We as humans are in a crossroad, where many
alternatives or proposals in the scientific and technological world are the
unavoidable part of human life. “Technoscience, when well directed, can produce
important means of improving the quality of human life, …” and preservation of
the environment. However, “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet
nothing ensures that it will be used wisely, particularly when we consider how
it is currently being used.” The question is “in whose hands does all this power
lie, or will it eventually end up?” (LS 103). Throughout of this short work, we
are going to approach to two, among so many, technoscience achievements:
nanotechnology and geoengineering, some of them we are already having in our
hands through a variety of technological devices or gadgets. It is important to
analyze the pro and counterparts of them, and finally, to reflect on our
Christian faith response to.
Nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology is an art and science of
manipulating material on the manometric size scale. Dimensions between
approximately 1 and 100 nanometers are known as the nanoscale (nm). It is like
domesticating the atoms and molecules according to our needs. The ideas of
nanoscience and nanotechnology started with a talk entitled “There’s Plenty of
Room at the Bottom” by physicist Richard Feynman at an American Physical
Society meeting at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) on December 29, 1959. The term was coined
in 1974 by Norio Taniguchi of Tokyo Science University to describe
semiconductor processes such as thin-film deposition that deal with control on
the order of nanometers. His definition still stands as the basic statement
today: “Nano-technology mainly consists of the processing of separation,
consolidation, and deformation of materials by one atom or one molecule.”
The main
benefits, so far, considered from nanotechnology are: it may help to obtain,
storing and use of energy more efficiently; improving the electronic and
computing system allowing to construct circuits in very accurately on an atomic
level; its potential is major in the medical area: Nanobots could be sent into a
patient's arteries to clear away blockages; surgeries could become much faster
and more accurate; injuries could be repaired cell-by-cell; it can make possible
to heal genetic conditions by fixing the damaged genes, etc.
Nonetheless, as
any misused technology, nanotechnology might contain a real threat for example
for environmental effects in the future as potential new toxins and pollutants,
however, L. Boff has a positive approach, who considered that nanotechnology
can help us to transform the very
pollutant elements that are damaging our environment and also to produce goods
to overcome poverty. The negative effects can be seen also in economic
issues where nanotechnology can be placed in the hands of a few specialized
companies and producing unemployment. Perhaps the main concern on this
technology is about privacy and security like producing microscopic and
detectable recording devices that can be injected in the human body and to get
computerizing control; weaponizing it like smart bullets, atomic and novel
weapons that can fall in the wrong hands, etc.
Geoengineering.
“Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale in the Earth’s oceans, soil and
atmosphere natural systems to counteract the effects of climate change temporarily”
(Fred Pierce, 2019). The initiatives in this field came out of American
researchers in 1960s suggested floating billions of white objects such as golf
balls on the oceans to reflect sunlight. In 1977, Cesare Marchetti of the
Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis discussed
ways of catching all of Europe’s CO2 emissions and injecting them into sinking Atlantic Ocean currents. In
1982, Soviet scientist Mikhail Budyko proposed filling the stratosphere with
sulphate particles to reflect sunlight back into space. The first experiments o test the idea of
fertilizing the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of CO2-absorbing algae
were carried out by British researchers in 1995. Now, this technique is a strong
scientific proposal in the International Climate Change meetings to be accepted
by multilateral organisms like UN.
According to the
Geoengineering Monitor project of Biofuelwatch and ETC Group, the
geoengineering proposals are:
·
·
Carbon
dioxide removal: These
proposals posit that it’s possible to suck carbon out of the atmosphere on a
massive scale, using a combination of biological and mechanical methods, from
seeding the ocean with iron pellets to create plankton blooms to creating
forests of mechanical “artificial trees”.
·
Earth
radiation management: ERM
proponents suggest that the negative effects of climate change can be offset by
allowing heat to escape into space -for example, by thinning cirrus clouds.
So far, there is strong resistance to the implementation of Geoengineering because is a false and an external solution to the climate crisis that aims to address the symptoms of
climate change but ignores and enables the root causes to continue. Here
are some of the key reasons to oppose geoengineering:
·
None
of the technologies have a track record, all of them come with major risks and unknowns, and
in some cases, the effects would be obviously catastrophic.
·
Weaponization: Computer models show that
geoengineering interventions can have regional winners and losers; to the extent that geoengineering successfully changes climate patterns in a
predictable way, it will inevitably be weaponized.
·
Detracts
from real solution:
By promising a quick fix, geoengineering threatens to delay the implementation of
a transition away from fossil fuels and could redirect funding and investments
away from real climate solutions. Some geoengineering proposals require vast
amounts of energy, which means less climate-friendly energy for everyone else.
·
Risk
for human rights and biodiversity:
Many geoengineering proposals require the intensive exploitation of vast
amounts of land. Those projects would inevitably displace millions of people
and potentially wipe out entire ecosystems.
·
Favoured
by the global north, backed by billionaires: Most of the political and financial support for
geoengineering comes from a small group of elite engineers, a handful of
billionaires like Bill Gates, fusil oil corporations and a growing group of right-wing politicians
So, this global palliative proposal seems to be
a “High-risk technofixes are proposed so that some can survive while
preserving their privileges, even if it implies a whole series of new
environmental and social threats for millions of other people” (John Leo, 2019).
If we review the stand of the church, it has
always had some precautious even fearful approach to science and technology,
for example, the all anathema sits of Pope Pius IX against science in
December 21, 1863. Fortunately, since Second Vatican Council, the church
changed its view towards the modern world and its technoscience’s advances.
Nowadays, we are called to see everything with the eyes of faith or critical mind
and heart so that we may not swallow anything but to have a piece of proper knowledge,
analysis and decisions, because “any technical solutions which science claims
to offer will be powerless to solve the serious problems of our world if
humanity loses its compass if we lose sight of the great motivations which
make it possible for us to live in harmony…” (LS 200).
Whatever the technoscience is discovering has
already been in the richness and potentiality of nature. The main challenge
is how we humans use what we discovered; here, the role of ethical principles
has to play much. All signs and new discoveries should guide us to our main
goal the joyful life or integral and integrated life with the creational
community. The mystic Willigis Jager (2018, 26, 64) keenly points “The future
humanity will be mystic, …I believe that the XXI century is a century for
metaphysics and its propulsors will not be philosophers and theologian but
scientists, because they are who aiming to a reality which may not be
demonstrated: God”. The wonders of science and technology should help us
sharpen our faith in God.
Bibliographical reference.
Boff, Leonardo & Hathaway, Mark (2014). El
tao de la liberacion: una ecologia de la transformacion. Madrid: Editorial
Trotta.
Jager, Willigis (2018). La ola
es el mar: espiritualidad mistica, Titivillus, PDF.
Leo, John (2019). Geoengineering
‘false solution to climate crisis’. http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2019/11/geoengineering-false-solution-to-climate-crisis/
What is nanotechnology? https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/introduction/introduction_to_nanotechnology_1.php
Pearce, Fred (2019). Geoengineer
the planet? More scientists now say it must be an option. https://e360.yale.edu/features/geoengineer-the-planet-more-scientists-now-say-it-must-be-an-option
Pope Pius IX. The Syllabus.
Pope Francis (2015). Laudato
Si, Vatican.
Fr. Efrain Vasquez Mamani, cmf.
