"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.." - Ian Malcom, Jurassic Park
I love this phrase from Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park. In context, a mathmatician (or chaostician, if Ian had anything to say about it) argues that scientific power requires no strong disciple for using that power, just because it's available. To apply it to today's standards, sure, you can definitely post that video of last week's party on Facebook and YouTube, but should you?
That's an example of gross oversimplication, because the should/could argument can apply to very complex decisions. And it's something that is grounded in some morality, not just pure discovery. Just because we have the technology, ability, and knowledge, to create something, that does not mean it's something that should be done. Our goals, morals, and laws dictate the should/could decision. In absence of laws, our own morality will provide direction.
I've often thought of many things that fall in the should/could bucket. I've been involved with should/could decisions. Inside me I knew what the right choice was, even though others around me didn't. Too many people focus on the "we could" because it can be new, thrilling, and something "no one's done before!" Perhaps no one has done it before because it's not something that should be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment