Over these last few weeks I had been reading and reading about nutrition and science and certain phytonutrients in certain fruits and vegetables, and what happens when you cook them versus eat them raw, and what is lycopene, and what is the value of vitamin C supplements… and eventually I got tired.
I realized the more I read and the more I placed hope in this science of nutrition to tell me everything, the more hollow I felt.
What was the goal? Why was I so concerned about learning so much? …to know everything? …to never die? …so that my loved ones will never get cancer? I don’t know. But all this science somehow made life, and food, feel hollow. Where was the mystery? Where was the joy in eating, and living?
Mysteriously, I decided to pick out a book called “Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition”, by Wendell Berry. Here it is in my “dresser”:
This book touched on a variety of subjects that were perfect for me, including philosophy of science and art, and also economics, technology, agriculture, and our ecosystems. It helped me realize that the hollowness I was feeling was probably a result of the attitude, the language, and the unspoken assumptions behind the books I was reading and, as a result, the thoughts I was thinking in my head.
The material on nutrition I was reading was surely humble in its acknowledgment of the vast ignorance of modern science in the area of nutrition and health. However, there were still assumptions, language, and a view of the world that is communicated through such literature. There is the assumption that, with further research, we (science) will eventually understand everything. It is only a matter of future research until we know it all, until we know exactly what it is about spinach that makes us healthy and vigorous. There is also the assumption that the entire world, humans included, is one big machine. It operates according to the laws of physics (which we humans will eventually figure out), and everything is mechanical and explainable in these terms, we just haven’t got there yet.
I think Wendell Berry is right that this is the dominant assumption of modern scientists. It was exactly what I thought when I finished high school, and I had gotten my good share of Discovery Channel, library DVDs, David Attenborough, Honors Physics, and a 5 on the AP Chemistry exam. Not until college, when I started learning about modern physics, about special relativity, about quantum mechanics, did I realize, “Holy cow, this world is WAY more complex than I thought!” Even my physics professors would tell me in office hours: “Don’t worry that you don’t feel like you totally understand it yet, even when you get your PhD, you still won’t fully understand it. Because as far as we can tell, our world is not intuitive to the human mind.”
Even in math, I learned about something called Godel’s First Incompleteness Theorem. For years and years it was assumed that math was perfect, human rationality decomposed to its bare minimum. Thus, it was assumed that every mathematical statement was either true or false, and could be proven to be so. We just hadn’t found the proofs yet. But, with further research, we shall surely find those proofs. AMAZINGLY, this is wrong! Godel actually showed that for whatever mathematical system you come up with, there will always be statements that cannot be shown to be either true or false! There will always be statements that can be neither proved nor disproved! Could it be the same for science, for our understanding of the physical world? Could it be that we humans are somehow “cut off” from a true and total understanding of our world? Thus, the world would not be just a machine awaiting human scientific explanation. I think it is possible.
What is important is that this kind of worldview, this kind of attitude and thought process, treating the world as a machine, really left me feeling hollow. It is much better to view the world in a different way I think.
I read Wendell Berry and thought about these things partly on a walk down a hill. I took the bus to Berkeley for the day, but the bus driver made a wrong turn, and tried to correct it, but couldn’t, and tried again to correct it, but couldn’t, and eventually we were all up in a hill, in a bus that couldn’t turn around, a mile away from Berkeley! I walked down the hill, ate some watermelon, and saw this beautiful sight! (Notice the bridge in the background!) Now isn’t life a miracle?
For quite a while it has been possible for a free and thoughtful person to see that to treat life as mechanical or predictable or understandable is to reduce it. Now, almost suddenly, it is becoming clear that to reduce life to the scope of our understanding (whatever “model” we use) is inevitably to enslave it, make property of it, and put it up for sale.
This is to give up on life, to carry it beyond change and redemption, and to increase the proximity of despair (Berry 7).
We know enough of our own history by now to be aware that people exploit what they have merely concluded to be of value, but they defend what they love. To defend what we love we need a particularizing language, for we love what we particularly know. The abstract, “objective,” impersonal, dispassionate language of science can, in fact, help us to know certain things, and to know some things with certainty. It can help us, for instance, to know the value of species and of species diversity. But it cannot replace, and it cannot become, the language of familiarity, reverence, and affection by which things of value ultimately are protected (Berry 41).
To say as much puts me on difficult ground, I know. To confess, these days, that you think some things are more important than machines is almost sure to bring you face to face with somebody who will accuse you of being “against technology”—against, that is, “the larger, more efficient business organization” that will emerge inevitably “to the benefit of the many.”
And so I would like to be as plain as possible. What I am against—and without a minute’s hesitation or apology—is our slovenly willingness to allow machines and the idea of the machine to prescribe the terms and conditions of the lives of creatures, which we have allowed increasingly for the last two centuries, and are still allowing, at an incalculable cost to other creatures and to ourselves. If we state the problem that way, then we can see that the way to correct our error, and so deliver ourselves from our own destructiveness, is to quit using our technological capability as the reference point and standard of our economic life. We will instead have to measure our economy by the health of the ecosystems and human communities where we do our work. (Berry 54).