Behind the Face of Science

Has science dramatically changed what is means to be human?

Being human is an elusive term. After all, who is to say killing someone is literally inhuman? Because of this uncertain footing to begin with, the multitude of ways in which science has pervaded our lives is difficult to pinpoint. However, it is irrefutable that science has greatly revolutionised what it means to be human.

 

Science, with its infinite potential, promises the human community progressively sophisticated modes of living, by way of eradicating borders between each other and preventing us from operating as single, separate entities. Given that the most fundamental attribute of being human is the need for interaction and communication, what is considered the most primal skill to survive has now been undervalued by technology. With the advent of convenient substitutes like the Instant Messenger and the Internet, face-to-face communication these days seems more of hassle than a basic social skill: chatting online is so much more efficient than arranging a meeting in person. Alienism and the degeneration of interpersonal relationships are the first steps towards changing what it means to be human.

 

The subsequent step that science has taken towards changing the definition of being human is by disproving the beliefs in which we lay our faith. Science, being the polar opposite of religion, serves to nullify the claims that religion has laid down, that we are all governed in some way by an unseen ‘higher being’ and that we are all part of a grand scheme unbeknownst to us. Stemming from the hard facts and proofs, science repudiates the theories by questioning the existence of that ‘higher being’. With the presence of science to challenge the convictions we so staunchly guard, the contentious conflict between religion and science will remain a pivotal one about which the meaning of being human will teeter.

 

Diversity has always been at the heart of humanity, and in more than one way, science has killed this diversity. One reason is that science, which has given birth to globalisation, which in turn has made the world more interconnected and therefore more exposed to other cultures, assimilation of existing cultures around the world – especially that of the West – has led to homogeneity. The essence of being human has, in this manner, been indirectly killed by science. Another more direct way in which science has changed the meaning of being human by killing its very essence is through genital mutilation. Plastic surgery is seen as a form of conformity to upheld standards of beauty, as more people rush to go under the knife to attain the ‘perfect’ face, looking almost identical to the next person. Diversity has now been sidelined by vanity, all because of what science has to offer. Apart from this fad, a more insidious form of mutilation – of the idea of creation – arrives in the shape of cloning. While cloning is said to open up more methods of correcting defective organs, it can also be seen as ‘playing God’, creating what should not be created. Does science not, in this case, toy with our morals? Therefore, does having our morals tussle with the likelihoods brought forth by science not imply a change in what it means to be human?

 

However, it can also be disputed that because of the possibilities put forth by science, the inherent greed present in every man is fuelled even further, and that science, in this instance, complements nature of humans instead of changing it. Our insatiable wants go only as far as our imagination can take us, and with science heralding previously-unheard of possibilities, the boundaries are invisible. Lucrative businesses such as putting internal organs up for bidding on the Internet have even sprouted up, and fraud cases mount everyday. Science, in this case, has not changed what it means to be human, because such acts can only be kindled by greed, an affliction Man has yet to succeed in shaking off.

 

Also, to understand the conflicting ideas of religion versus science, it is imperative to consider the extent to which a belief is regarded as a religion. When does a belief become a religion? Can science, then, not be considered a religion? Therefore, if that were the case, would science not be, once again, complementing human nature instead of changing it?

 

Science has been said to make Man immortal, wherein its different fields of study and research aid him in preventing disasters (seismology, volcanology) and diseases (toxicology, virology) and prolonging his life (nutrition, oncology). Of course, that is a complete exaggeration, but science has, indisputably, created so many more prospects that it could probably make what is mortal immortal. Based on creation and innovation, science therefore always lies in the hands of Man to decide how far it can traverse, the extent of its reach as well as the intensity in which it impacts our daily lives. The problem is, sometimes, it is difficult to see when the roles are reversed, and when mankind is sucked into the machinations of science.