![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Things Man Was Not Meant To Know"
Jan. 8th, 2005 02:35 pmNote: I raised this question once on the Bujold list, with interesting if mixed results. I know many of those who read this journal are Bujold listies; if my returning to the subject bothers or bores you, I regret that. Not enough to refrain, mind you...
"Things Man was not meant to know" is a recurring theme in horror and in some science fiction (more in film than on paper). As far as I can tell, much if not most of the sf community finds the idea repellent, generally on the grounds that knowledge is a good thing. I agree with (an appropriately nuanced version of) that sentiment, but I've come to the conclusion that the concept can be reformulated in a plausible way, and I can nominate at least one good candidate for the role.
First, the knowledge in question has to have value. ("How could I destroy all life on the planet?" does not strike me as a useful or interesting question...)
Second, it has to be obtainable by the methods of some recognized science. (I don't want to argue about what constitutes science; let's cast a broad net.)
Third, although I doubt that the possession of knowledge can be, of itself, evil, it is certainly possible for the means by which the knowledge is obtained to be evil. (Cf., e.g., the "experiments" conducted by the likes of Dr. Mengele.) It is at least conceivable for a particular piece of knowledge to be unobtainable except via unethical experiments; this is the third criterion.
So, what I'm proposing as "Things Humanity Should Not Try to Discover" (updating the moldy old phrase) are the answers to any questions which, though of interest and scientifically resolvable, cannot be resolved by ethical means.
Under the cut, I have ( a candidate ). I'm curious if anyone can suggest another reasonable candidate, knock down mine by showing how such information could have been obtained ethically, or challenge my proposed criteria. Any takers?
"Things Man was not meant to know" is a recurring theme in horror and in some science fiction (more in film than on paper). As far as I can tell, much if not most of the sf community finds the idea repellent, generally on the grounds that knowledge is a good thing. I agree with (an appropriately nuanced version of) that sentiment, but I've come to the conclusion that the concept can be reformulated in a plausible way, and I can nominate at least one good candidate for the role.
First, the knowledge in question has to have value. ("How could I destroy all life on the planet?" does not strike me as a useful or interesting question...)
Second, it has to be obtainable by the methods of some recognized science. (I don't want to argue about what constitutes science; let's cast a broad net.)
Third, although I doubt that the possession of knowledge can be, of itself, evil, it is certainly possible for the means by which the knowledge is obtained to be evil. (Cf., e.g., the "experiments" conducted by the likes of Dr. Mengele.) It is at least conceivable for a particular piece of knowledge to be unobtainable except via unethical experiments; this is the third criterion.
So, what I'm proposing as "Things Humanity Should Not Try to Discover" (updating the moldy old phrase) are the answers to any questions which, though of interest and scientifically resolvable, cannot be resolved by ethical means.
Under the cut, I have ( a candidate ). I'm curious if anyone can suggest another reasonable candidate, knock down mine by showing how such information could have been obtained ethically, or challenge my proposed criteria. Any takers?
