CAN WE EVER KNOW TOO MUCH?

Dunstan Times, Issue 3101, 9 January 1922, Page 8

CAN WE EVER KNOW TOO MUCH?

(By W. K. Crampton Chalk, who says Science must continue to wrest from Nature her closcly-guardecl secrets, and discusses whether we shall ac- , quire more knowledge than we can advantageously employ). A French scientist has recently changed the sex of a frog. How long will it he before science changes Death into Life Already wc have had the marvel of the thyroid gland, which, in some

cases, has proved successful in effecting an obvious rejuvenation. The conference of the liritish Association lias brought before the public eye many wonders that might at one time have passed for miracles, and men and women naturally begin to look to science to solve some of the ultimate mysteries of life. Man is a restless, progressive creature; give him the moon and he wants the stars. Nor does it seem likely that the capacity for solving problems was implanted in him for any other purpose than that he might solve them. Since man has a conscious reasoning intelligence, able to express itself, you can never deny mankind the right to truth. JJut a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and man’s knowledge of the Plan of Things will never be more than a little compared with the whole. If the sex of a frog can be changed, why 'not the sex of a human being? Possibly it may come to that one day. Think what it will mean. Put it is folly to say, “There will then be no superfluous women,” for how do we know that the women arc superfluous? Might they not be l part of some great plan in the universe, a plan whose mature and splendid result will bo seen from 500 to 1000 years? It is dangerous to know how to do a tiling unless you know exactly what will result from it. the Great Fire of London could have been stopped, the citizens would certainly have stopped it. Yet we know to-day what a. blessing in disguise' the Great Fire was. It wiped out the narrow and horribly insanitary streets, whose filth was a hotbed of plague. fs it possible, then, that mankind will out day become possessed of more knowledge than our limited minds can properly administer. II science can concpier sex, it may "ell conquer death. To have conquered physical death would mean that the ordering of a man’s life was in his own hands. Put what, would have happened if men like Napoleon had been able to extend their lives and activities indefinitely? ft becomes evident that the ordering of a man’s life is a matter, not for his own private consideration, but for the consideration of all inankmd. Would not the whole race ho speedily exterminated in a riot oj confusion, if every personal whim were a matter of easy satisfaction? In any case you might easily prolong the life of a man, «who. subsequently, would arise and wreck whole nations; you might even implant in him the genius to do it. It is no wonder that the cry goes up to leave Nature and her secrets alone, so that her great plan*may proceed unmolested. Wo begin to feel that any kind of personal suffering is better than interfering with the Fates. \\ o begin to feel that the secrets of Nature are like Pandora’s box, which, once opened, lets fly. not merely all her blessings, but all her curses, too. Yet there is little need for fear. The real question is, whether our intellects will expand proportionately with our knowledge. Shall wo know what to do with what we have learnt? As science advances, so philosophy advances. The more wo learn about a tbing tho better we are able to understand its meaning. Wo know that nothing ever happens haphazard. Everything has its canes, and though as yet we cannot actually predict the future, we can learn more and more what effects result from what causes. The time may come when, for example, tho little causes that lead up to a great war will be seen and watched and eliminated years before the y can ripen. Fnbargained-for troubles will always be appearing, but the mistakes we make in future: days out of our wisdom are bound to be less than those eve make to-day out of ignorance. For every genius we should kill by sex control, we kill a hundred to-day through disease.

Obviously siicJi control c.iiiiiot lie personal, but will have to be entirely in the hands of very competent- anllion-

iry of Science, perhaps an international .Ministry. Unt the bnreannal need not take heart—it will hardly be needed ibis side of the next century. and it will be no-place for politicians! In the meantime. Science must go forward- —and we must determine to use