Genetics of Original Sin

by Christian De Duve

  What should we do?

  How to preserve the many beneficial social activities religions accomplish within their own sphere without giving up the critical rationalism on which the scientific endeavor rests? Such, for me, is the crucial question facing us today. My answer, for what it’s worth, is: by each sacrificing all that can be sacrificed “without losing one’s soul,” if I may be permitted this religious expression.

  Religions no doubt will have to make the biggest sacrifice, by yielding to the uncontested discoveries of science in all the fields of knowledge that depend on it. This implies, for religions, a profound and painful reappraisal of many of their teachings and submission to the scientific manner of addressing problems, instead of demanding the uncritical acceptance of affirmations that are either unsupported or supported only by writings made several millennia ago by men who may have been wise but knew little about the world and our place in it. Such reappraisal, if pursued deeply enough, could even pro vide a new and more satisfactory response to the religious hankering imprinted in human genes, by emphasizing, as so many great scientists have done, from Darwin to Einstein, the feeling of empathy and reverence with respect to what, in my book Life Evolving (2002), I have called “ultimate reality,” inspired by our new understanding of the world.

  On their part, scientists should prove as open-minded and accommodating as demonstrated facts allow. Thus, for example, while denying biological evolution on religious grounds is clearly inadmissible, claiming on scientific grounds that God does not exist is equally objectionable, for such an affirmation—as well as its opposite—is scientifically undemonstrable. Both are a matter of personal belief, fiercely argued and rationalized on both sides, but, in the last resort subjective, not objective. It is likewise possible, if not commendable, to respect in others a number of beliefs one doesn’t share, albeit on scientific grounds, but that cannot be proven false. What is not tolerable, on the other hand, is the claim by certain religions that they hold the truth without providing proof of this affirmation or, even, knowingly and deliberately negating scientific acquisitions. Respect for faith must stop at what is demonstrably inadmissible.

  Ethics without doctrine is possible

  Even though most religions are directly based on systems of beliefs, their ethical precepts can be adhered to without subscribing to the substance of the beliefs. Many confirmed atheists lead as moral lives as the most devout of churchgoers; even more moral in some cases, judging by the recently uncovered rash of pedophilia among the Catholic clergy.

  It is possible to follow the recommendations of Jesus without believing him to be the son of God, miraculously conceived without sexual intercourse and resurrected after dying on the cross, to “ascend” in full bodily shape to some mysterious, heavenly abode, which many keep locating in the sky in spite of the discoveries of cosmologists, where the good among us are due to join him for eternity after our own death.

  It is likewise possible to obey the teachings of Buddha without believing his spirit to be reincarnated at each generation in the body of a young chosen child and without seeing our own life as the manifestation of some immaterial principle that can move up and down the animal scale depending on the quality of the effort we make to free ourselves from our material constraints. It is possible to be a disciple of Moses or Mohammed without crediting them with the privilege of God-given authority.

  In other words, while it is true that religions often base their moral directives on creeds, such a foundation is not indispensable. Notions such as equality, liberty and fraternity, social justice and human rights, rationality and critical thought, defended by secular humanism can suffice.

  The dialogue between science and religion is desirable but difficult

  The last few years have witnessed an increasing number of initiatives aimed at establishing a dialogue between representatives of the scientific and the religious worlds. So far, such initiatives have enjoyed only moderate success, because this dialogue cannot, as would be the case in politics, economics, or other fields of societal interest, end in a compromise. This is not possible in the present case. When there is contradiction between what science knows and what religion believes, there can be no compromise; religion must yield. But, for this to happen, the distinction must be made between authentic scientific knowledge and merely an opinion held by a majority of scientists, or even all, for reasons that are science-inspired but not conclusively demonstrated. As we have just seen, biological evolution belongs to the former category; the nonexistence of God to the latter.

  Another problem is that such attempts at a rapprochement often seek unavowed objectives, such as inducing the admission by some scientists that “science does not explain everything,” with, as outcome, a legitimization of certain vacuous “theories,” such as intelligent design.

  In a different vein, in an impressive setting in the heart of the Vatican, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences gathers some eighty members chosen among all disciplines and all parts of the world, without distinction of nationality, gender, and even, to some extent, philosophical opinion. It includes a certain number of overtly Catholic scientists and a few clerics—among them, until his accession to the throne of Saint Peter, the present pope, elected at the time when he was Cardinal Ratzinger—but also Protestants, Jews, Muslims, occasionally adherents of other religions, together with an appreciable number of agnostics and unbelievers, assembled under the joint umbrella of scientific excellence. In addition to plenary sessions, which are interesting through the contacts they allow among representatives of all major scientific disciplines coming from all over the world, which national academies do not allow, this unique body organizes a number of specialized meetings, bringing together experts, mostly nonmembers, to debate in complete freedom some of the most sensitive issues of our times. The only shortcoming is that the influence of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the Church magisterium may not be as significant as one would wish (although more may happen behind the scene than one suspects).

  Possibly more important than such scholarly exchanges is the questioning by an increasing number of believers of the teachings of their own Church. This may be more of a European phenomenon than an American one. Certainly, in the circles that are familiar to me, in France and Belgium, for example, there are several signs that this is beginning to happen. In the Catholic Church, many sincere believers admit that the so-called articles of faith must be taken with a “grain of salt” and that many ethical rules imposed by the Church are to be interpreted as wishful recommendations rather than rigid laws. A growing number of so-called progressive theologians publicly agree with such views and engage in open-minded discussions with freethinkers. The opposition between the two camps is clearly dwindling. A similar trend is observable in the Church of England. Evangelical denominations in the United States seem less disposed toward such free interchanges.

  Slow reappraisal from the inside may possibly prove more effective in bridging the gap between science and religion than aggression from the outside, more likely to evoke resistance rather than submission. The militant atheism proselytized by authors such as Richard Dawkins, has, in spite of the success of their books, caused hardly a dent in the armor of even the most open-minded believers, who cannot help being shocked by the virulence with which their most sacred beliefs are attacked. No, if religions are to be changed, it will happen only from within, most likely by some sort of grassroots movement starting from the base, rather than by an unlikely conversion at the top. There is little doubt that peaceful interaction will prove more effective in the long run than open warfare.

  Religions, through their influence, and the sciences, through their knowledge, must urgently collaborate for the salvation of humanity

  However desirable the reforms advocated above, the differences between science and religion are not about to be resolved. They are too fundamental for that. But the two can join forces, with science supplying the hard factual information on issues such as natural resourc
es, biodiversity, climate change, energy supply, pollution, health and disease, demography, nuclear energy, cloning, genetic engineering, and other technological innovations; and with Churches providing their facilities, clergy, membership, and worldwide influence to dispense education and promote appropriate actions. They could, if only their leadership took the initiative, launch a new crusade on behalf of a modern kind of salvation, destined to rescue humanity from the consequences of its genetic “original sin.”

  18

  Option 5: Protect the Environment

  R eligions are not the only organizations capable of influencing human behavior on a worldwide range. Environmentalism has become a major power in this respect. This is a very recent phenomenon.

  Protecting the environment is a very recent human concern

  From the time they first appeared up to the near-present, humans have exploited and polluted the world without scruple, in pursuit of immediate benefits. Not that they are to be blamed. They were not aware of the harm they were causing. The explorers and conquerors who laid the basis of the colonial empires and first settled the American continent treated the world as a source of unlimited bounty, with no regard for the consequences of their plundering.

  In the nineteenth century, the advances of science and technology and the triumphs of the Industrial Revolution born from these advances were acclaimed with unbounded enthusiasm, almost devoid of concern for their harmful effects. The world belonged to us; its resources were there to serve us. If a problem should arise, science will have the answer. Even in the first half of the twentieth century, as I well remember, there was little worry about the long-term outcome of our actions.

  This attitude was partly linked to the political climate of the time. The fact that progress had certain drawbacks did not go unnoticed. The smoke and soot generated by heavy industry were notorious. But those nuisances were accepted as a valid price to pay for the gathered benefits, especially as they affected mostly the worker populations grouped around the factories, whose welfare did not much concern the ruling classes. Only little more than fifty years ago were voices first raised to denounce the excesses of human exploitation and defend the environment on a planetary scale. This is a crucial “first” in the history of humankind.

  An interest in nature did awaken earlier, but of a different nature. Inspired by the romanticism of the time and by the back-to-nature message of the Swiss-French philosopher and writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), this new movement was directed at preserving in pristine, “virgin” state, together with their flora and fauna, some picturesque, mostly out-of-the-way natural sites. In the United States, a similar trend, prompted by the vivid reproductions of plants and animals by John James Audubon (1785–1851) and by the works of such writers as Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862), George Perkins Marsh (1801–1882), and John Muir (1838–1914), the founder of the Sierra Club, led to the creation of the first national parks, inaugurated in 1872 with Yellowstone National Park. Also dating back to those times is the American Forestry Association, founded in 1875 to combat the devastation ofAmerican forests by wholesale logging following the conquest of the West, an innovative organization, perhaps the first to be explicitly aimed at restoring natural resources destroyed by human activity.

  In those days, however, the main attention was given to distant, mostly exotic places. The local countryside and, especially, the urban environment attracted little solicitude. The situation started truly changing after the Second World War. Eloquent warnings, though sometimes disputable in certain details, by such visionaries as Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, Margaret Mead, Barry Commoner, René Dubos, James Lovelock, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Peter Raven, Daniel Janzen, and E. O. Wilson in the United States, followed, in Europe, by the Club of Rome and others, began to be taken seriously, leading to formation of powerful groups of environmental advocates, some of which organized into political parties, especially in Europe. Today, the Greens have gained a significant place in world affairs.

  Ecology has penetrated daily human life

  The major threats facing us are now acknowledged, and measures against them are discussed and sometimes even implemented. The greenhouse effect and resulting climate changes are increasingly recognized. Measures to curb carbon dioxide emissions have been devised and, to some extent, embodied in law. Much has already been accomplished to save endangered species and to protect the environment against chemical pollutants. Efforts are made to exploit renewable energy sources, with solar panels and wind-powered generators springing up in many parts of the countryside and along seashores. Projects to harness natural imbalances, such as tides, marine currents, and temperature inequalities, are contemplated. Much invest ment has also been made in development of environmentally friendly fuels and energy-saving engines, lightbulbs, refrigerators, and other appliances. More attention is being paid to the expenditure of energy in food production and some improvements have been made. Waste is increasingly recycled. In a general fashion, energetic costs and pollution effects have become significant parameters in any technological initiative. Thanks to the growing use of contraceptives, population expansion is slowing down, though not as much as it should.

  All these accomplishments are recent and deserve to be commended and encouraged, the direct result of a newly acquired awareness of our planetary responsibilities. Unfortunately, they are not without drawbacks.

  Ecology has become the source of major controversies

  The main problem is that the recommended measures have a price. They demand from the citizens, especially in industrialized countries, that they modify their habits and sacrifice all sorts of comforts that are taken for granted by those who benefit from them and are seen as enviable by the others. In addition, some of those measures threaten powerful, entrenched interests and menace considerable sources of potential profits, thereby generating the inevitable admixture of politics into the debate. To cite only one example, the interminable disputes on global warming and on curbing carbon dioxide emissions illustrate the complexity of the conflicts generated by this kind of situation. The puny results of the conference on climate, held in Copenhagen in December 2009 under worldwide coverage and with great expectations, highlight these difficulties.

  Another difficulty is that scientists do not always agree on the nature of the problems or on the interventions those problems call for. Such disagreements are almost unavoida-ble in view of the partly conjectural aspect of the discussions. The future projections on which recommendations are based are uncertain and debatable. Scientists, being prudent and critical, as required by their profession, feel obliged to underline those uncertainties, a fact the opponents of certain measures and the experts on which they call do not fail to exploit.

  The resistance of certain political and economic groups against envisaged measures are not the sole causes of discord. The environmentalists themselves—a minority of them, at least—also bear some responsibility. Regrettably, the movement they have launched has too frequently let itself be dominated by a vocal minority that conflates justified concerns with ideological and political positions that are foreign to science and, sometimes, even opposed to it. Environmental protection, this eminently respectable, essential, and just aim, is increasingly linked with systematic hostility against technological innovations, whatever they may be, and even against the scientific enterprise in general, accused of being mainly responsible for the ills that are being fought, with no regard for the powerful aid it can provide to this fight for environmental improvement.

  There is a surprising difference between the United States and Europe in this respect. In the United States, new technologies have mostly been accepted with little opposition. In Europe, environmentalism has become intimately mixed with political objectives. Certain extremist groups even go so far as to amalgamate technological realizations with the capitalistic system, which they hold responsible for the harmful consequences of globalization and do not hesitate to combat by any method, including violence and
lawlessness. Even in its more pacifist manifestations, ecological activism too frequently bases its stands on assertions of poor scientific credibility and on arguments that are more passionate and irrational than objective and rigorous.

  Nuclear energy: pro or con?

  The debate about nuclear power illustrates this problem. Nuclear power has drawbacks. Its installations are subject to accidents that, even though rare, can be major disasters, as shown by the Chernobyl catastrophe. There is also the serious problem of nuclear waste, whose safe disposal has not yet been satisfactorily solved. Nuclear power stations need a lot of cooling water and contribute significantly to the warming of waterways and resulting damage to aquatic life. The vulnerability of nuclear power stations against terrorist attacks is also a threat. There is, in addition, the risk, particularly acute in some parts of the world, of a drift from civilian to military applications of nuclear technology.

  Despite these many drawbacks, the reality of figures must be faced. Human energy needs are enormous and growing every year. So far, most consumption occurs in industrialized nations. But there is every reason to anticipate the day when each household in China, India, and other developing parts of the world will have—or demand—a refrigerator, a television set, a dishwasher, and other appliances, if not one or two automobiles. The planet’s stores of fossil fuels are finite and will be exhausted in a few centuries. In the months that have gone by while I finish writing this book, the world has increasingly been shaken by the vertiginous rise in the price of oil and its equally sudden collapse because of severe self-inflicted damage to the global financial system. Whatever these fluctuations, oil supply is bound to dry up in a not-too-distant future. Coal and natural gas will soon follow. In addition, fossil fuels have serious defects. Their retrieval is not environmentally harmless or risk-free, and their use produces carbon dioxide, contributing to global warming. Whether renewable, nonpolluting energy sources will suffice to cover growing needs is far from certain. Few, if any, entirely reliable projections have been made. It is remarkable, in this connection—and deeply deplored by many Greens—that one of the first advocates of ecology, James Lovelock, the father of the “Gaia” model, has recently admitted, albeit reluctantly, that the energy requirements of the world will not be met without nuclear power.