In Dune, Herbert used heroic myth elements from the Western tradition in an effort to awaken in his readers a sensitivity to the needs that prompt a messianic religion. But even so, it is too easy to see messianism as something that happens only to desert peoples like the Fremen. Less immediately apparent is the fact that to Herbert the neurotic use of science in modern Western civilization betrays the same pattern as messianic religion.
Herbert’s feelings about science are most clearly presented in Dune and in three short novels that followed its publication, The Green Brain, Destination: Void, and The Eyes of Heisenberg. Each of these works reveals the two faces of science: it may he used to help man come to terms with the unknown, or to help him hide from it. In the latter case, it is a kind of religion, whose false god inevitably turns on his worshippers.
The irony is that Paul is not a freak but an inevitable product of the Bene Gesserit’s own schemes. Although he has come a generation early in the plan due to Jessica’s willfulness in bearing a son instead of a daughter, the real surprise is not his early birth but the paradox of the Sisterhood’s achievement: the planned instrument of perfect control, the Kwisatz Haderach, was designed to see further than his creators, He could not help but know the emptiness of their dreams. The universe cannot be managed; the vitality of the human race lies in its random generation of new possibilities. The only real surety is that surprises will occur. In contrast to the Foundation trilogy’s exaltation of rationality’s march to predicted victory, Dune proclaims the power and primacy of the unconscious and the unexpected in human affairs.
Tim O’Reilly
With the renewed interest in the Dune universe following the recent movie, I have discovered this book on its subreddit. While I have only read this chapter yet, the insights into Herbert’s thinking are fascinating. The parallels with Asimov’s Foundation were always apparent to me, but I considered its closest analog in Dune to be the Mentats’ abilities, Paul’s prescience, and later Leto’s Golden Path. Instead, the author reveals that the Bene Gesserit and their breeding program were intended as a commentary and reaction to Asimov’s psychohistorians – which does make a lot of sense in the context of Herbert’s themes for the series.
The treatment of science as a quasi-religion or dogma is unfortunately well too present in our time. Both global warming and the coronavirus pandemic have their large shares of people mindlessly proclaiming that we need to ‘follow the science’ – as if science were infallible and immutable and somehow equaled perfect knowledge. The truth is that science is constantly evolving, discovering new facts and correlations, which may reinforce previous conclusions – or upend them entirely. And this is precisely what enables progress, the ability to change your mind and be flexible when the need arises, not become stuck in centuries-old dogma.
The pandemic has been a constant lesson in the scientific method, and how its conclusions can change rapidly with new information – right now we are anxiously awaiting more results about the omicron variant. As some countries demonstrated, you don’t need to wait for perfect evidence to take relevant action – in fact, those that acted quickly had generally better success in containing the pandemic than those that waited around for scientific consensus.
Moreover, the mantra of ‘following the science’ can serve as a convenient way to evade responsibility for what are ultimately policy decisions. The science may tell us that humans burning fossil fuels is causing global warming, but it doesn’t dictate which actions we should take. One option is to accept that fact and simply continue on the same path, regardless of the state of the planet in the next century. Another is to impose strict controls on energy consumption and reduce economic output and standard of living in the rich nations to drastically reduce emissions. Are these options acceptable or desirable? That’s not a question for science to answer, but falls squarely in our own human responsibility.
Post a Comment