Tolerance and Humility

"If that's all there is, my friend, let's keep on dancing." - song by Peggy Lee, author anon.

PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF TERRY SCHIAVO'S long, slow demise has crystallized our societal anxiety about death and dying, and resulted in passionate peals of outrage. What we hear is another verse of the old song about the relationship between science and religion; here we go, dancing to the tune as others have before us.

One partner, Humanism Uber Alis, is dressed in "autonomy regime colors" and favors choice above all. The other, Theocon State, clothed in the Many-colored Robes of God, claims our human obligation is to value life above all else. Both militantly hold aloft the banner of human dignity while trying to impose their morality or ethic on all, and implying their opposite is intolerant, stupid, or worse. Yet, each side's logic is fatally flawed and, as a practical matter, any resultant "victory" by one over the other would bring its own defeat.

Theocons: A big Christian theocratic state would, in very short order, be unable to afford to put its money where its mouth is; there's not enough money or mouth in the universe to do that. And why would God Almighty or anyone else want to torture people with eternal survival? The heavens and hells of life should be enough to satiate even the most voyeuristic god. The theocracy would create rebellion unless, as in the past, it resorts to force and oppression.

Humanism uber alis: A Scientific Oligarchy would be no less servile to power than any other state. It's not that people are all evil, but that we have limitless potential and limitless desire. Moreover, the ethics of state humanism are unstable as smoke. Peggy Lee's song was her reaction to lost love among other things, but it goes for unfettered humanism too. If we are merely matter, what does it matter what we do to ourselves or to one another? And why should those who acquire power of State look on its members as anything other than ants or dust? Such a state would not have any merit for the vast majority of its all too human, fragile and needy members. They could only be controlled by force.

In the past, major technologic change has led to societal turmoil and then gradual return of relative stability. Our problem is we live in a time of constant and accelerating scientific development. The disagreement about Schiavo, abortion, embryonic research, and an endless litany of human right to determine the time or nature of life, death, preservation of life in all stages, etc., is only the beginning.

It is going to be a bumpy ride, one we might as well learn to enjoy. I contend it will require doses of pretty scarce commodities: tolerance and humility.

Mann's assertion about great truth holds for ethical well as scientific constructs. We must turn away from accusative and intolerant polemics where we don't hear one another. We must find in ourselves some humility, because otherwise we will not survive the coming period of technologically-driven turmoil as a nation or a people.

I am neither wise nor knowledgeable enough to address all the issues we face. However, the tools to do so seem evident, if only we can learn to use them. Those of us who disagree fervently need to talk together more earnestly than do we who are in agreement; talk with, not talk to.

john@loofbourow.com