Progress as a Private Affair

Today, Science has become the new God. Faith in it is often no less fundamentalist than religious fanaticism. Science is elevated above everything else—and lately there are even attempts to place it above human rights, justifying their restriction with “scientific” arguments.

The claim that science does not make mistakes is itself mistaken. History is full of scientific errors, from antiquity to the present day. Some of these mistakes have already cost humanity dearly; for others, we have yet to pay the price. Humanity’s approach to knowledge has often been driven not by wisdom, but by arrogance and a desire for power.

In its pursuit of ever-greater dominance, humanity forgets Pythagoras’ insight: the more we know, the more we realize how much we do not know—elegantly illustrated by the circle symbolizing knowledge and its circumference symbolizing contact with the Unknown. As the circle grows (knowledge increases), so does its circumference—its contact with the Unknown.

Beyond all this, science is neither free nor democratic. It is subject to countless interests.

The scientist of Serbian origin Nikola Tesla made numerous discoveries that remain classified to this day after corporations purchased the patents. Tesla himself died in poverty, attempting to sell an invention he believed could end scarcity. His notes were seized by the U.S. government.

This is just one of many examples showing that science is neither free nor developing evenly in all directions. Those branches of science that receive funding are the ones that advance. That funding is predominantly private and directed toward projects that promise profit for corporations and align with their interests and policies.

Scientific achievements are often implemented in the economy with the goal of quick, short-term profit—aiming to “strike” the market and secure positions without considering long-term consequences for nature and society. At times, scientific facts are even suppressed when they contradict certain interests.

Technologies are also developed to shape societies in specific ways, aligned with business and governmental agendas. For example, it appears that for certain circles it is preferable not to produce energy-autonomous technologies—such as solar-powered vehicles—but instead systems dependent on centralized energy supply controlled by the state or corporations. This keeps individuals dependent on energy prices, which are most often set privately, by corporate interests.

Centralized energy supply also means centralized power—and reduced individual autonomy.

A key element of the contemporary scientific and governance paradigm is the idea that humans, as collections of biological algorithms, are programmable. Another related concept suggests that the most efficient societies are not democratic ones, but controlled societies—where people are unaware of the control. This way, no energy is wasted on overt coercion.

Whether one agrees with these ideas or not, science is actively developing the psychological, social, and technological tools necessary to implement such systems. Many readers are likely familiar with the CIA’s MKUltra program, aimed at controlling human consciousness and behavior through drugs. Although the program was officially terminated long ago, attempts to influence human behavior continue.

Today, the focus is on behavioral modeling through profiling—officially a private endeavor carried out by corporations such as Google, outside public funding and, so far, largely unregulated by law. In short, the direction of scientific development is not controlled by society, nor is its implementation in everyday life. The driving force is state–corporate interest, concerned solely with power and profit.

The deployment of technologies for psychological and social modeling, surveillance, and monitoring—technologies that reshape societies and threaten democracy—does not enjoy public approval. No one wants to live in a totalitarian techno-dystopia. Yet corporations proceed regardless, presenting this trajectory as inevitable and “natural.”

But is it?
Who would willingly want artificial intelligence to analyze and program them?
We are told it will be “better.”
Better for whom?

Another example of so-called scientific “progress” is genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Genetic engineering, involving the manipulation and mixing of genes across species, is driven by corporations for profit—not for social well-being or ecological health.

The long-term effects on human health and ecosystems of organisms that could never arise through natural evolution remain unknown. Most people are skeptical of GMOs. How many actually want to consume them? How many farmers want to purchase patented GMO seeds every year—seeds engineered with terminator genes that prevent reuse?

Is it natural for humans, with their limited understanding, to interfere so deeply in nature solely for profit and control? GMOs may benefit large corporations, even if that means dependency, poverty, and unpredictable risks to ecosystems and human health. For corporations, this is acceptable—especially when it enables them to claim ownership over altered natural mechanisms.

Another “achievement” of progress is the widespread use of algorithms in daily life, institutions, and business. In the United States, algorithms are already used in some cases to decide whether prisoners should be released early. Whether this is justified is, at the very least, debatable—raising serious questions about dehumanization.

Algorithmic rule over human life is expanding rapidly. Today, algorithmic decisions based on data analysis can deny someone employment anywhere, due to discriminatory profiling that labels an individual uncompetitive based on work history, psychology, or health data.

For those already employed, algorithms may determine work schedules day by day—or night by night. In some U.S. fast-food chains, workers may finish a shift at 1:52 a.m. and be called back at 5:37 a.m., learning their next schedule only at the end of the current shift.

Who benefits from this kind of technological progress? And is the economic benefit truly greater than the social damage inflicted on countless lives? Perhaps such oppression—keeping people confined within rigid frameworks that block personal, social, and professional development—is precisely the intended outcome in certain visions of society.

After all, who said progress must benefit everyone?

In her book Weapons of Math Destruction (2016), Cathy O’Neil concludes that the mass application of algorithms across society threatens democracy and leads to increasing inequality, injustice, discrimination, stress, and ruined lives.

Yet some call this progress.

Today, ecosystem destruction, pollution, climate change, overpopulation, and resource scarcity paint a bleak picture for humanity’s future. In this context, is it appropriate to direct public attention toward fantasies like colonizing Mars while our own planet is in danger?

Why not first save Earth—as a rehearsal for adapting other planets to life? This would be far more achievable even now, with existing technologies. For example, a single year of the U.S. military budget could fund irrigation systems in the Sahara, transforming parts of it into fertile land and lifting entire regions out of hunger and misery.

But some seem intent on diverting attention from Earth’s destruction—encouraging humanity to look upward into the sky rather than down at its own feet, until it inevitably stumbles.