Human imbecility has grown through the force of numbers, but thanks to the progress of science, it is less and less in control of the destiny of the human race Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

 

The height of the idiots? São Paulo – I beg the pardon of those over-sensitive people for the harshness of the title-question and will answer the question straightforwardly. And the answer is both yes and no! I will explain this further. Yes, unfortunately it can be empirically proved –but this could be confirmed by some “scientific” investigation- that it is increasing, due to the unheard of figures in the media, the number of imbeciles, idiots or simple fools, whose opinions, lucubrations or mere manifestations of “thoughts” manage to get the attention of the media, thus finding a wider echo in printed and audio-visual means. On the other hand, scientific production or the simple schooling of the masses that had been excluded from the educational system (of any level or quality) has never been so vast and widespread. This way, scientific culture is spread in wide areas that used to be the domain of the most varied “cultural” influences, from shamanism to supposedly “cultural” religious fundamentalism. Thus, humanity progresses, even if this can be described as the “natural fate” of the accumulation of scientific knowledge and that this knowledge is in very few hands (and brains). With these two processes developing simultaneously, the answer to the central question is therefore a double and contradictory answer: never before had there been such a large number of people sharing the same set of simplistic –and basically wrong if not idiotic- answers about the complexities of the world and of life, while at the same time the number of those who are capable of climbing the harsh scarps of science and come to rational –all the more rationalist- conclusions for these same problems is gradually increasing. Therefore, one thing doesn’t exclude the other. As all those who deal with educational systems know, when the access to formal educational institutions is opened to the widest possible mass, part of which used to be excluded from these means, a decrease in the quality of education is unavoidable because you are dealing with the most unprepared and deprived from any and all sorts of information. People who used to be “educated” in superstitions and “normal” beliefs of the popular sectors, in the inferior culture of the lower layers of society, from one moment to the next start having access to channels of sociability and the mass media like magazines, newspapers and internet. Some are even successful in professional areas and become people with high incomes, having the capacity to influence the decision of corporations and governments, and therefore of influencing a larger number of people. If these people managed to acquire a better education, with a logical structure and scientific basis through schooling and books, so much the better: they will be able to spread a better culture than the one they had where they originally came from and thus contribute to the spiritual improvement of humanity. If, on the contrary, they go through formal education unchanged and keep –or even increase, in a pessimistic hypothesis- the same original superstitions, the same primary preconceived ideas, the same naïve explanations that has shaped the mass of humanity ever since time out of mind, we can only forecast the worst: the increase of opinions which have no basis and the wrong answers to the most complex questions of life and society. We can even foresee the consolidation of ignorance in a real “union of fools”, whose members increase before our very eyes. This applies for instance, to those that are blinded by astrology and “magical” explanations about the “event” in life (in love, finances, old age) and, above all, in relation to the growth of religious fundamentalism and the variations of creationism which I can only explain as the representation of the congenital imbecility of people who have even had an average access to formal education and decent means of life. In fact I become more and more surprised with the increase in these literal interpretations about the origin of the universe, of life on Earth and the creation of man and the other living beings, “explanations” that basically affect history and biology (with all its variations in geology, anthropology or archeology). Without meaning to offend anybody in particular –but possibly offending, for which I shall not apologize- I can only ascribe the fact that more and more people are willing to adhere to these naïve, simplistic or deeply wrong versions of the origin of life on Earth and its development, to the triumph or ignorance. Obviously these same people reject the theory of evolution and its practical consequences, therefore they are completely inadequate for any scientific career, at least in the areas of biology, geology or other natural sciences (not to speak of the tortured and tortuous history of mankind). Without meaning to call anybody in particular an idiot –but possibly doing so, for which I shall not apologize- I am indeed astonished that so many people are willing to adhere to a vision of the world that is so terribly compromises their future chances of progress in a superior culture and in scientific careers that could contribute to their own individual welfare and to an improvement in the standard of living of all mankind (eventually for his/her own, if they ever found themselves in an emergency that required a minimum specialized knowledge, usually of the scientific area). It is obvious that in all historic ages and in all societies, scientific culture has always been a very restricted and deeply elitist matter, meant only for a few members of the community. With the widening and growth of educational institutions, this culture gradually becomes available for a larger number or people, but its establishment and development depends, finally, in the individual effort and the personal zeal in the comprehension of complex technical problems that start to be spread in an amplified scale. This scientific culture will always compete with naïve culture, with simplistic and unreasonable explanations or even with the most complete ignorance –which, by the way, doesn’t cease to appear- dressed up as “common knowledge” or common sense. The reason for this is simple: disregarding the social milieu of origin, of the income level and the family background, people are born equally endowed, in other words, with some innate skills and the same fundamental cultural ignorance. Culture and education will be “installed” in them in the extent of their exposure to superior sources of culture and education, or they will have the same knowledge “tools” from their original social background or of those sources to which they were exposed during their lives. It is difficult to acquire a scientific culture and a “superior” explanation about life because this requires constant study, applied reading, non-elementary reasoning and some “sweat” in the search of explanatory instruments of complex realities, that are in any case, non-obvious. In other words, resigning itself to the innate tendency to laziness and comfort, in the absence of dangers or external stimulations that might trigger creativity or innovation, the major part of humanity adapts itself to common sense and elementary explanations, which are obviously rudimentary, if not prejudiced or downright mistaken. Only a small part of humanity is made –or forced- to answer to external challenges or his own intellectual curiosity (which is also innate, but requires something else apart from simple reactive actions to environmental stimulation). We therefore have the traditional division between scientific culture and popular culture, which has already been analyzed in the work of epistemologists and science historians, disregarding here any cultural relativism whatsoever or manifestation of “political correctness” concerning the supposedly egalitarian virtues, or endowed of some “natural geniality” of the second in relation to the first. This seems to me to be the “sociological mold” through which it would be possible to analyze the “emergence” and “dissemination” of mistaken explanations, which are frankly deleterious and (why not say it?) completely idiotic about the real world, that result from these “creationist” or anti-evolutionist beliefs that, just like in the USA, tend to spread in Brazil at an amazing speed. Wherever you look it seems to be the same: more and more people, incapable of rising to a superior culture –that we call scientific- are overjoyed when not delighted with simplistic religious explanations or mere superstitions. And what’s worse: since they have access to the media –today anybody has access to the Internet, and even a “fine dog” might have a webpage- these people are free to expose their tremendous ignorance, their traditional prejudices, and their common sense mistakes transmitted from the cradle to an endless –and probably uncontrollable- number of other people. Since the exploitation of people’s credulity has also become common practice in our market-oriented times, especially in some wings of the “religious industry” –that bases its action in the “theology of prosperity”, but above all the individual prosperity of the “ministers” of the new religion-, it is obvious that human imbecility, as the title of this essay says, has a tendency to increase. The triumph of some imbeciles –yet perfectly capable of making a living off of the ignorant and naïve- who don’t have scruples in extending their encyclopedic ignorance in all the possible directions that are open to their scarce talent and low art, is unavoidable. It is a relative and also an absolute increase, that is: more and more people who have a “naive culture” are mobilized by the shrewd ones on duty, not all of whom are imbeciles or idiots; far from it, because some make quite a profitable profession of it. On the other hand, it is normal that a large part of humanity that now has access to relatively satisfactory means of subsistence can survive and prosper physically (obviously thanks to the progress of the science that many so joyfully ignore). Now they are individuals who have been torn away from a state of intellectual lethargy and into a situation of active exercise of common sense trivialities or downright collective imbecilities easily spread through the unrestricted access to modern means of communication. It is the success of the incompetent, like a wise Brazilian said; it is the triumph of ignorance in its widest sense, since the technical media do not distinguish between good and bad “culture”, between true and false, between rationality and the most absolute non sequitur. On the other end, the knowledge accumulated by the human species about its own existence and the environment that surrounds it was never so vast. Since science and knowledge are accumulative and, on principle, not “extinguishable” –except in cases of enormous human and natural catastrophes- the only possible forecast in this ground is the expansion and improvement of scientific knowledge, for the benefit of humanity as a whole, including the most imbecile. In other words, even the fundamentally stupid on the verge of rejecting a scientific explanation for the origin of their eventual diseases, can see their lives saved by the progress of medicine and therefore, in an exercise of “involuntary Darwinism”, continue to spread his ignorance and his prejudices to a generation of idiots facing him. For instance: those who refuse a blood transfusion can be saved by a legal order or a temporary change of religion –some non-idiots on this point- in order to allow a medical operation and survival. (Some radical Darwinists might not agree with this survival of the idiots, but the humanitarian perspective commands that we must do all we can to save our fellowmen). In sum: science and rationality make progress before our eyes and they make everybody’s life better and longer. They are always restricted to a relatively small number of people, in any case until good quality education and the desire to research become more widely available in societies. On the whole, ignorance and prejudices are moving back, yet they continue to be quite common, in the extent that they also constitute traditional characteristics –I won’t say innate for respect towards the human race- of societies. Conclusion: yes, human imbecility has increased through the force of numbers, but thanks to the progress of science, it is less and less in control of the destiny of the human race. Or am I wrong?
__________________
Paulo Roberto de Almeida Holds a Doctorate in Social Sciences, he is the author of several papers on international relations and Brazilian foreign policy .