Woolwich

A tragedy occurred recently in Woolwich, London. Lee Rigby, a 25 year old member of the British military was murdered in broad daylight by two men shouting "Allahu Akbar." After trying to behead him with a machete and a cleaver, they then filmed a message detailing their justification as outrage at British foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. An urgent Cobra defence meeting was then commenced by leading Police, Military and Government figures, describing the attack as "terrorism."

So far, two main streams of thought have dominated the political discussion as to why this tragic event occurred. The first is the one offered by ultra-Nationalists such as the EDL, who argue this is symptomatic of the large "evil" Islamic presence in Britain. The second one stream of thought is that unjust British foreign policy in the Iraq war and Afghanistan have raised tensions and made us a target for radical islamists. Both are incorrect.

Despite what the English Defence League may tell you, Woolwich was not a result of Islam's beliefs because Islam probably played a negligible role in the killer's motivation. Whether you are a Muslim or not isn't the deciding factor of whether you are going to kill someone, as evidenced by the many peaceful Muslims not inclined to murder anybody. The man was a Muslim, but that does not mean his Islamic faith caused the murder. Islam, like any culture or part of society, has its own share of bad people who do bad things.

Nor was British foreign policy the main cause of this atrocity, with some claiming we made ourselves "a target for terrorist attacks" Whilst the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan has angered many Muslims and other protestors, nearly all have found a way to oppose the wars peacefully. The foreign policy did not inspire normally peaceful people to suddenly murder. It has just provided an excuse for the already disturbed and violent to lash out in an exceptional and horrific manner. The cause of this murder was not foreign policy, but the inability of two people to deal with it in the peaceful way the majority of others had opted for.

The Woolwich tragedy was not caused by the killers' Islamic faith, or British foreign policy. It was caused because two presumably disturbed, volatile and violent men had the psychological capacity to kill someone and found an excuse to do so.

So why have these two false narratives of faith and policy garnered such attention and ground?

The first reason is because of our selective bias. We already have views and opinions, and we will subconsciously attempt to fit events into this frame of reference "as evidence" for those beliefs. The EDL want to believe Woolwich was the result of the Islamic faith because they already believe Islam is bad and this narrative supports that view. The anti-war campaigners want to believe this is the result of the Iraq war because that narrative would support and further justify their argument. Both these groups are large and have good media exposure, meaning these narratives gain intellectual ground quickly.

The adoption of these positions is also because they offer a "lesson" that can be learned, so as to prevent them happening again. They not only provide reason for the tragedy, but a comforting message that we can take steps to stop it re-occurring. This not only assures those worrying about their safety, but also ensures the tragedy did not occur in vain, because society can "learn" from it. This is another reason these narratives have proved popular; because they provide comfort and meaning.

In the anti-Islamic case , the "lesson" is that Islam should be removed from Britain, and this will stop tragedies like this occurring again. In the case of those who blame foreign policy, the "lesson" is that we need to withdraw from our conflicts faster, apologise, and take a more conciliatory approach in future issues, this will help prevent a similar event in the future.

However, this tragedy was not caused by these two things. It was caused by two men with warped morals deciding to kill someone, with Islamic outrage at foreign policy providing a convenient excuse. It was a senseless heinous act. There was no meaning to this violence. There is no lesson we can learn from it and no easy solution. There will always be violent people in the world, with the capacity and will to murder. Tragedy doesn't need to be meaningful, reveal an insight or provide a realisation. Woolwich was an example of this, perhaps increasing it's tragic nature. The blame and responsibility lies not with Islam or the Iraq war, but with the men that committed this atrocity.

Art, Frustration, and Science for Science's Sake.

Art and Science seem to be seen as antagonistic within society. Those who are artists may see the scientist as an incomprehensible robot, devoid of imagination or flair in their quest for knowledge. The scientist may see the artist as an incomprehensible bum, devoid of utility or practical knowledge. However, both are intricately linked to our desires and ideas. Art tries to create and cultivates them. Science attempts to make them a reality.

Art is the attempt to create a secondary, preferable world, and let it rest inside the mind. It can be a relaxing world formed through music, or a heroic adventure viewed in film, or a utopian fantasy created by the written word. This needn't be every piece of art's purpose. The art needn't even have purpose. However, this formation of a secondary world of desire is one of the main and most successful purposes of art.

Science on the other hand, is an attempt to make these desires into tangible realisations. It does not create imaginary worlds for us to play with like art. Science uses natural laws and discoveries to make this world a physically improved place. It is a force for physical and technological change in this world, the creator of improved tools and improved weapons.

Science fiction is the overlap between the two. It deals specifically with desires that science can create, such as time travel, space travel and intelligent robots. It acts as both a crystal ball and a guiding beacon; revealing what science could try and simultaneously suggesting it. It is art on a scientific theme, bedazzling us with tales of time machines and super-intelligent robots, and often taking artistic license with science itself.

However, dues to some of its claims to be prophetic visions of the future, science fiction is often treated as whimsy or literary trash. When it predicted flying cars and pill-food, but none materialised, disappointment and ridicule was the result. This frustration is unique to science fiction because of the way it combines science and art. The imagination of the human species is boundless and our desires infinite, but the rate of scientific progress remains finite. Therefore the scientist and science itself is in an eternal game of catch-up, constantly trying to meet our insatiable demand for faster, better and more exciting things. Meanwhile the consumer is forever disappointed with the demands left unsatisfied. The advance of science breeds speculation and new possibilities for our mind to consider and cultivate in science fiction and art, but then means some of these desires will be left unfulfilled, and frustration is bred.

However, this frustration is a wrongful one. It is ungrateful and spoilt to accuse science of being too slow. Science has delivered incredible improvements in our quality and length of life. In 1840s England, the average life expectancy was 39. It is now 80 years. Science has done great work improving the human condition, and will continue to.

Some may argue that while science has created a better world, it has not created the more interesting and fantastic world promised by science fiction. Therefore, while the frustration cannot be justified on utility, it can be on grounds of style and incredibility. However, anybody who stops to think about the modern world will find it competes with the best science-fiction novels on every level of absurdity. A fact that Laurie Penny points out in in this wonderful essay:

“[You are absurd] reading these words through the damp flesh meniscus of the eyes you were born with, from a backlit screen skinning a device that contains more computing power than the first moon shuttle. So am I, writing them on my smartphone on a rattling New York subway train deep underground. What we’re doing right now is patently absurd, splendidly quotidian and unlikely, and yet this is how we communicate, you and me.”

Science is not only an effective tool for positive change, but a beautiful and absurd one as well.

So how do we stop this frustration? How do you stop yourself taking for granted the wonders science has given us? How do you prevent the disappointment when science doesn’t meet the expectations you had when you were a child?

The first aspect of the solution is to stop expecting that science can solve everything. Science can work the occasional “miracle” but most of the time technological advances require good human handling for society to fully benefit. Science can only compensate for human ignorance and failure so much, as anybody who has argued with staunch fundamentalists can attest. Science has improved food production to the extent there is enough food to feed everyone, but the structural inequalities and human excess of the world act as obstacles to solving world hunger. There are human faults at play as well. Before you ask, “Why hasn’t science solved this like I thought it would?” also ask, “What can I do to solve this?” One way to stop frustration at the supposed faults of science is to realise some of its faults are ours.

The second way is to not expect Science to follow the whimsy and imagination of art and science fiction, but allow it to tread its own path. Do not follow science in the hope of certain discoveries such as hover-cars and pill-food. Science is unpredictable and discovery is an untamable beast, seemingly appearing upon the whim of the universe. 

Instead, appreciate and do science for science’s sake. Enjoy science because it elegantly boils down this huge complex world into simple equation and small particles. Enjoy science because it is one of the drums to which our knowledge marches forward. Enjoy science because without it we would never adventure into the unknown void, and live in the wrongful complacency of ignorance. In the words of Thomas Huxley:

“The known is the finite, the unknown the infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the middle of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land”

Science has contributed greatly to this world and will continue to. However, the rate at which these changes come will be slow compared to the desires and ideas placed upon science. In order to avoid the disappointment and misery that will inevitably arise when some of these are left unfulfilled, we need to think about and appreciate the wonders science has already left us. Secondly, we need to realise that not all of these desires can be achieved purely through science and technological change, political and social change may be required as well. Finally, and most importantly, we need to realise that science has a function beyond tangible benefits. It is the biggest road on the quest for knowledge, and it should be walked down simply because doing so is educating and, quite often, beautiful.