Have you ever opened your mouth and said something only to immediately regret it? It seems to be something that we're almost compelled to do, even if we know that the outcome isn't going to be good. In the heat of an argument our rational mind may take a back seat to our emotions and unchecked aggression may come pouring out of our mouth before we have a chance to hold it back. Now granted it may not even be when emotions are high, there are just times when something seems ok to say and it's only when it's out there in the world that we realize how wrong we were. It's at those moments that we wish we could rewind and put those words back into our mouths. We see the mistake after the fact and by then the damage is done. It makes me wonder though how this same type of thing can happen on a much larger scale, far beyond just simple words.
When the first atomic bomb was detonated, Oppenheimer quoted the Hindu Bible by saying "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." He knew at that point what he had helped create was more terrible than could be imagined. He knew this and yet it didn't change anything. Atomic technology was now out in the world and couldn't be taken back. Often that's how it is with things. Once they are fully realized, it's too late to take them back. Now I'm no scientist or doctor so maybe it's different for them when they get caught up in the excitement of discovery and experimentation. Still you have some of the smartest people in history running headlong towards something, not noticing the fact that what they're creating may be one of the most devastating things ever conceived by man. Then again, maybe they don't care or they simply believe that humankind will overcome its short sightedness. Granted the creation of the atomic bomb was a direct result of the anticipation that the German or Japanese were also potentially creating a super weapon that would help them win the war. It's hard to say if when the neutron was discovered that anyone could have guessed where it would lead.
I imagine that for some things it's just a natural progression from one to the next. The neutron was discovered. Then uranium bombarded with neutrons after that. Using neutrons to split the nucleus of an atom followed that. After that the ideas kept coming, tumbling over the top of each other and building momentum. As we've all learned, it's not always a single event that can change things drastically. It's the culmination of events leading up to it that creates an overwhelming surge of change. So when we're in that argument with someone it's the build up that's more important than the actual trigger. The trigger only ignites what was already there.
When I was in high school I had a chemistry teacher who told us that we stopped going to the moon because we had lost the technology to do so. All those German scientists that had come over after the war were either dead or retired. With them gone, the technology they created was gone too. It was a strange concept to accept because it's not like forgetting to bring your notes to a math test, this was NASA and you would have to imagine that someone somewhere wrote down the necessary information to recreate what was done before. The explanation given to this argument could be that someone like Einstein could hand you his notes on the theory of relativity, but most people wouldn't have any comprehension on what to do with it. Sure you may be able to follow the formulas that were already spelled out. That wouldn't necessarily prepare you for making the next leap in logic, using what was written down to move to the next idea. So while NASA had the means to create the lunar lander and a rocket that could propel it out of our atmosphere, did they have the ability to create what was next? I think they did. That's where the space shuttle came from. Most likely we stopped going to the moon because it was cost prohibitive and at the time we felt we learned all we could from physically being there. Plus the world now knew that we had the technology to leave our own planet. I guess the question is why after over forty years hasn't anyone gone back or made a real effort to leave the planet? Back in the 60s the technology didn't exist and had to be created. Now nearly anyone can find out what was done back then on the internet or a museum. So how come no one has taken the next step? Do we lack the drive or the ability?
The whole thing brings up the idea that maybe it is possible for us to lose the technology. It's just assumed that once an idea is out in the world then it can never be lost. The Antikythera mechanism is thought to be 1500 years ahead of its time. Does that mean it was created and those who used it or created it never shared the technology with anyone else due to some strange circumstances? History is full of incidents of leaps forward and setbacks. Our own world is very precarious and it wouldn't take much to disrupt what we take for granted. How many of us know how a CD really works or if forced to, could recreate the technology to produce them again? The same with computers. You may have put together a computer from parts already made, but most people who use computers on a regular basis couldn't tell you how to build a computer from scratch. So in that regard it's entirely possible that technology could be lost or at least seriously setback. It also makes me think about how specialized the world has become. Sure with enough training just about anyone could do my job. I could probably go be a farmer if needed. We all have the potential to do nearly anything, but we've settled into our roles among society almost without a second thought. Food will be at the market. The phone lines will work when we pick up the ringer. Government will continue to maintain the status quo. Even if there was a serious disruption to what we know, it would take a long time for us to forget what we could do. In that regard could anything ever really be put back in the box?
