Icarus or the Future of Science

by Bertrand Russell

In this rambling essay, Bertrand Russell reflects on the future of the world while the memory of the First World War was still strong in the public imagination. Russell notes the concomitant development of technology and the rise of political autocracies and explores whether man can be considered fit to handle the vast new powers at his disposal.Public Domain (P)2022 Voices of Today

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction

64 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1959

About the author

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Reviews

[Michael P. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though I admire Lord Russell, this is a silly book. He believes that science will usher in a new world order as it replaces superstition (usually religion) with facts, and brings conveniences to lessen the working burden of humanity. I would love him to be right, but reality seems to resist him.

I live in a country where over half the national politicians (after the 2014 election) use the excuse "I'm not a scientist" to ignore climate change. The obvious conclusion would be to listen to the scientists instead us using their non-scientist status to ignore what science has learned, but that in not how these ideologues work.

I believe that Russell erred in believing humanity as openhearted and sensible as he was when it came to science, but the stupid people, by definition half of humanity is of below average intelligence, get to vote, too, and they elect people just like them.

Even when Russell is wrong, his books are stimulating and great kick starters when the mind atrophies from daily life. I certainly recommend this book on that basis.

[Viji (Bookish endeavors) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yet another essay on whether science is a boon or bane. Russell divides science into three groups-physical,biological,and anthropological-and analyses the progress of science under these heads and the consequences of these. He analyses the status of science in the world which undergoes industrialization and in the post-industrial world. In these lines,his words seem to foreshadow the thoughts of Lyotard and Marcuse. He finds a unified world as a solution for the problem that the world faces today. But he adds,"the only solid hope seems to lie in the possibility of world-wide domination by one group,say the United States,leading to the gradual formation of an orderly economic and political world-government. But perhaps,in view of the sterility of the Roman Empire,the collapse of our civilization would in the end be preferable to this alternative."

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

RUSSELL CONSIDERS THE EFFECT OF SCIENCE ON HUMAN LIFE

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books.

He wrote in the Introduction to this 1931 book, “In considering the effect of science upon human life we have therefore three more or less separate matters to examine. The first is the nature and scope of scientific knowledge, the second the increased power or manipulation derived from scientific technique, and the third the changes in social life and in traditional institutions which must result from the new forms of organization that scientific technique demands… In the following pages we will be concerned with science rather than with wisdom. It is well to remember, however, that this preoccupation is one-sided and needs to be corrected if a balanced view of human life is to be achieved.”

He suggests, “the theory of evolution might have been admitted by some people without too great a struggle, but in the popular mind Darwinism became identified with the hypothesis that men are descended from monkeys. This was painful to our human conceit… As it is, people have always been able to defend their self-esteem, under the impression that they were defending religion. Moreover, we know that men have souls, whereas monkeys have none. If men developed gradually out of monkeys, at what moment did they acquire a soul? The problem is really not any worse than the problem as to the particular stage at which the fetus develops a soul, but new difficulties always seem worse than old ones…” (Pg. 43)

He states, “The limitations of scientific method may be collected under three heads: (1) doubts as to the validity of induction; (2) the difficulty of drawing inferences from what is experienced to what is not experienced; and (3) even allowing that there can be inference to what is not experienced, the fact that such inference must be of an extremely abstract character, and gives, therefore, less information than it appears to do when ordinary language is employed.” (Pg. 74)

He asserts, “It is easy to invent a metaphysic which will have as a consequence that induction is valid, and many men have done so; but they have not shown any reason to believe in their metaphysic except that it was pleasant. The metaphysic of Bergson, for example, is undoubtedly peasant: like cocktails, it enables us to see the world as a unity without sharp distinctions, and all of it vaguely agreeable, but it has no better claim than cocktails have to be included in the technique for the pursuit of knowledge.” (Pg. 76)

He explains, “I metaphysics my creed is short and simple. I think that the external world may be an illusion, but if it exists, it consists of events, short, small and haphazard. Order, unity, and continuity are human inventions just as truly as are catalogues and encyclopedias. But human inventions can, within limits, be made to prevail in our human world, and in the conduct of our daily life we may with advantage forget the realm of chaos and old night by which we are perhaps surrounded.” (Pg. 98)

He comments, “[Sir James] Jeans argues [in The Mysterious Universe] that the world must have been created by a mathematician for the pleasure of seeing these laws in operation… if God were as pure a pure mathematician as His knightly champion supposes, He would have no wish to give a gross external existence in His thoughts… The world, {Jeans] tells us, consists of thoughts; of these there are three grades: the thoughts of God, the thoughts of men when they are awake, and the thoughts of men when they are asleep and have bad dreams. One does not quite see what the two latter kinds of thought add to the perfection of the universe, since clearly God’s thoughts are the best, and one does not quite see what can have been gained by creating so much muddle-headedness.” (Pg. 112-113)

He argues, ‘I think we ought provisionally to accept the hypothesis that the world had a beginning at some definite, though unknown, date. Are we to infer from this that the world was made by a Creator? Certainly not, if we are to adhere to the canons of valid scientific inference. There is no reason whatever why the universe should not have begun spontaneously, , except that it seems odd that is should do so; but there is no law of nature to the effect that things which seem odd to us must not happen. To infer a Creator is to infer a cause, and causal inferences are only admissible in science when they proceed from observed causal laws. Creation out of nothing is an occurrence which has not been observed. There is, therefore, no better reason to suppose that the world was caused by a Creator than to suppose that it was uncaused; either equally contradicts the causal laws that we can observe.” (Pg. 118)

He continues, “The purely intellectual argument on this point may be put in a nutshell: Is the Creator amenable to the laws of physics or is He not? If He is not, He cannot be inferred from physical phenomena, since no physical causal law can lead to Him; if He is, we shall have to apply the second law of thermodynamics to Him and suppose that He also had to be created at some remote period. But in that case he has lost his raison d’être.” (Pg. 119)

He contends, “At present, within wide limits, any man who has money to invest may invest it as he chooses. This freedom was defended during the heyday of laissez faire on the ground that the business which paid best was almost the most socially useful. Few men nowadays would dare to maintain such a doctrine… consider the immense sums of money that are spent on advertising. It cannot possibly be maintained that these bring any but the most meagre return to the community. The principle of permitting each capitalist to invest his money as he chooses is not, therefore, socially defensible.” (Pg. 218-219)

Although Russell often comments on scientific matters in his many books, it is delightful to see an entire book of his learned and witty commentary.

[Sanja_Sanjalica · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a part of my reading the Nobel winners, and I must say, it's interesting to see the predictions of science made it the 50s. Some are dead on (like science fueling more advanced and complicated warfare) , while some like eugenics and world government is straight out of a dystopian novel. But the main point is the role of science in the society and it not being the tool for everyone's prosperity, at it was somewhat naively considered in the past, but for the interests of the selected groups. And with this I agree. Still, it's a dark and chilling prediction.

[Stef Bracke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Een interessant werk vanuit historisch perspectief. Het biedt een inkijk in de tijdsgeest, en het is opvallend hoe Russells opvattingen verband lijken te houden met biografische gegevens (al stoelt hij zijn argumentatie daar uiteraard niet op).

[Paul R · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written in 1959, a frighteningly prophetic essay on the growing dangers of propaganda and the misuse of science.

[Bala · Rating 1 out of 5]

Absolute waste of time.

[Bilal Bel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Farfetched though the ideas hereby shared in the book are, I derived a great joy from reading it, in one go. I would recommend anyone who wants to have a new insight into science.

[Eddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's striking to me that nearly a hundred years after its original publication, The Future of Science still rings true in so many ways. The description of power structures enhanced and supported by scientific (and technological) innovations could have been written today in 2020 with minor substitutions in terminology. It is a revelation to realize how little the world has changed considering the scientific and technological innovations that a century spawned. Humankind still exhibits the same old behavior regardless of having all the world's knowledge handy at any time; an emotional reaction is easier and cheaper than reason. It is a testament to the reluctance of our species to fundamentally change in spite of being given the tools to do so. Instead, we prefer territorial pissing matches that result in conflict and unnecessary death, often facilitated by the same technologies that make modern life easier. The essay hammers these points forth in its first parts and it should be read if not only for the poignancy of these words so long after publication. It isn't until close to the end of the essay that my issues with some of its ideas begin.

One of the main takeaways of the essay is that Russell believes that the only way for there to be world peace at some point is through the existence of a world government imposing its will. This would come as a result of a world-scale conflict between two rival superpowers, undoubtedly imagined as the United States and the Soviet Union at the time. The victor of this World War would have the opportunity to put in place the framework of such a world government. Russell argues that after years of squashed rebellions, people will eventually fall in line and accept their new global overlord -- he estimates after about a half-dozen rebellions or so. After this violent adjustment period is over, the global empire can soften up a bit and the real benefits of a world government become apparent.

This kind of thinking is not only naive but dangerously colonial and regressive. Further, it is interesting to think that a philosopher like Russell was pessimistic to the point of not believing that something like the United Nations could work or exist in the first place (the example of the failed League of Nations is given). No, another World War was the conclusion and its victor would rule the entire world. Of course, this piece was written before the horrors of World War II and the advent of the atomic and hydrogen bombs (not to mention the terrorist fundamentalists of the 21st century), so there's some likelihood that Russell would have changed his stance on such subjects given our benefit of hindsight, but there's also evidence against that.

This book ends with a self-portrait of the author written in the late 1950s. Here, Russell doubles down on an earlier stance of his that the United States should have annihilated the Soviet Union with atomic bombs while they had the chance and before the USSR's nuclear program had a chance to hatch; a preemptive and one-sided annihilation of a potential threat. This proposal seems to squarely oppose his ideals of denuclearization. Instead, what it reads like is a confirmation of a belief in Western European dominance of the rest of the world in fear of non-European nations coming to power.

The final words of the essay propose the United States becoming this global empire that would bring economic and world government. But, Russell says, given the sterility of the Roman Empire, it may be a preferable alternative if society as a whole would collapse instead. Given everything that has happened since WW2 due to the meddling of the United States in global affairs and challenging the sovereignty of independent nations, perhaps Russell would have altered his stance on this. Though, maybe not. Perhaps we're already on our way to a world government (or at least world governing), ruled by the United States, similar to the one that Russell proposed. There's certainly plenty of evidence for this to be the case, not in the least being the United States' propensity towards world policing. Perhaps I'm in denial that this is already happening and it will take more time for it to become more wholly apparent given another century or so. Certainly food for thought and enough reason to recommend this essay.

[Veronica · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Icarus, having been taught to fly by his father Daedalus, was destroyed by his rashness.'

This book was published over 60 years ago, yet its warnings remain relevant today. With the rise of AI, science once again gives more power to those in control, and without moral responsibility, it can do more harm than good.

“Science enables the holders of power to realize their purposes more fully than they could otherwise do. If their purposes are good, this is a gain; if they are evil, it is a loss. In the present age, it seems that the purposes of the holders of power are in the main evil,in the sense that they involve a diminution, in the world at large, of the things men agree in thinking good. Therefore, at present, science does harm by increasing the power of rulers. Science is no substitute for virtue; the heart is as necessary for a good life as the head.” - p. 28

Russell claims that science, If wielded by evil people, is harmful. Therefore, science is harmful today because our rulers are trash. So then, we need kindliness (i.e., moral virtue, 'the heart') to make science beneficial. But even if we could scientifically induce kindliness (e.g., “by kidnapping, on a given day, all the rulers of the world, and injecting into their blood some substance which would fill them with benevolence towards their fellow-creatures” - p. 30), we wouldn’t do it, because we aren’t kind enough to want to do that in the first place. And this creates a circular deadlock: we need kind people to make a kind world, but we can only get kind people if we already have kind people. Therefore, unless moral virtue magically appears out of nowhere, we’re stuck. Forever.

While I may agree with most of his assumptions, I refuse to see history as a static loop. Morality evolves, societies shift, and people, flawed as we are, can still choose to change. Even now, despite everything happening in the world today, I still want to believe that kindness endures, and that humanity is not beyond saving.

***
The text is highly accessible, concise yet full of rich insights and reflections relevant to its historical context. Divided into five chapters, including an introduction and a conclusion.

I read this in one sitting, highlighting and scribbling notes all over my copy while waiting. I barely noticed the time flying by. :)

[Oğuz Çağlar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is yet an another reason that why I do admire Russel.This book had written before WW II(1925) but yet his predictions are nearly perfectly accurate even to this day. Though the means of antropological influence on people not been made by scientists but rather by smart phones and applications.The good and the bad even becomes an inferior scale which is guided by not our conception but rather the others concept which the "others" ends up on one type of black and white.
He is seriously a genius.

[Anthony Defreitas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book written so long ago yet somewhat accurate in parts. I found it very interesting how he saw the future effects of technology so accurately in a lot of cases. I found his writing to be very personable as if he was talking to you instead of you reading what he wrote. Friendly almost. Not a long read either.

[Betsy Jacobs · Rating 5 out of 5]

This small volume came to me in a box left to my husband from his mother who had recently passed away. From the first sentence, I was absolutely hooked. Written in 1924, it is amazingly prescient. I will follow up with more of his writings, because I found him fascinating, and I fell madly in love with the mechanics of his arguments.

One of the many brilliant points that I will carry with me:

"In like manner women who advocated votes for women used to imagine that the woman voter of the future would resemble the ardent feminist who won her right to vote; and socialist leaders imagine that a socialist State would be administered by idealistic reformers like themselves. These are, of course, delusions; a reform, once achieved, is handed over the the average citizen."

This argument was made in the context of a discussion of eugenics, and how the science of eugenics, once perfected, would be enacted by the "average" official to promote traits that were desired by that same "average" official. As the point he was making sunk in, I had so many consecutive "aha!" moments that I was left a trembling heap on my chair.

What a man. What a mind.

[mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite Russell not having had the benefit of Post-WWII history, many of his observations and predictions are incredibly accurate; if his perspective was not burdened with the early 20th century notions of Victorian classism, I think he could have been even more so. It's an interesting exercise in reflection, to look backward to see forward. It's a shame western culture didn't learn more from it then, and doesn't pay attention to it now.

[Lilac · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting to see what an intelligent person was thinking about science in 1924. Also feels like somehow they must have been smarter then, it's a 60 page book that covers (well!) as many philosophical points as recent books I"ve read containing 300 pages

[Mark Lacy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like Haldane's book that preceded this one, not an easy read. This one spends more time on a "negative" view of the impact influence of science on society. Both books bring up eugenics, which is pretty much dead these days.

[Cameron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short and poignant.