H.G. Wells vs. George Orwell: Their debate on whether science is humanity’s best hope (tr)

H.G. Wells vs. George Orwell: Their debate on whether science is humanity’s best hope continues today.

In the midst of contemporary science’s stunning discoveries and innovations – for example, 2017 alone brought the editing of a human embryo’s genes, the location of an eighth continent under the ocean and the ability to reuse a spacecraft’s rocket boosters – it’s easy to forget that there’s an ongoing debate over science’s capacity to save humankind. Seventy-five years ago, two of the best-known literary figures of the 20th century, H.G. Wells and George Orwell, carried on a lively exchange over this very issue.

Wells, one of the founders of science fiction, was a staunch believer in science’s potential. Orwell, on the other hand, cast a much more skeptical eye on science, pointing to its limitations as a guide to human affairs.

I'm no luddite and certainly marvel at true men of science and the technology which has improved the lot of humanity immensely over that of our forebears. Knowledge is power and science and technology are but forms of knowledge. As such they are amoral and can be used for good or evil. As science expands our abilities and capabilities, it certainly holds out the temptation to do evil at least as much as it encourages us to do good. The threat from, "science," is two-pronged as I see it.

The first prong was illustrated by Mary Shelley in, "Frankenstein," and the question of technology out-pacing morality and ethics. There is a moral dilemma here...just because something can be done doesn't necessarily mean it should be, at least until all the ramifications are understood and thought through. There are some genies that will never be put back in the bottle.

The other prong is not really science per se, but an abiding trust in science that allows agenda-driven pseudoscience to cloak itself in an aura of finality. Ask most people in 2017 what they know about the Eisenhower presidency and most of them, if they know anything at all, will reference his caution against, "the military-industrial complex," cited in his farewell address. few if any, will have any awareness that was but one of two trends Ike warned about. Immediately after his well known admonition in his address, Eisenhower continued:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Wells was a Socialist

But so was Orwell. So it needs something else to explain the different attitude

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” - Robert A Heinlein

jobim: Wells was a Socialist
OB: But so was Orwell

In one way you are right, but in another his world outlook is more complex.

He was anti-Stalin, but aligned with those Communists who rejected Stalin. He was a
humanist. But above all, he was an unflinching, unsentimental realist who held views that
might seem in conflict, but because of his honesty, can be seen of a piece. For example,
his anti-Christianity yet his personal adherence to Anglican Church observance.

Wells, in my acknowledged un-researched opinion, was a True Believer in the way a
modern Liberal, such as (pick a journalist from FakeNewsMedia) instinctively and
reflexively leaps to the invariably Leftist stance on any issue.

The Time Machine is charming fantasy, like the fantasy in the head of all true Leftists.

1984, Animal Farm, his war essays from Burma, all display a true grappling with
the truth rather than with an ideology.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.