The Politics of Science

Beyond “The End Justifies the Means”

Yesterday, I joined a “public participatory activity”— a sizable crowd converging on the cinema displaying two massive movie productions. Despite my typical inclination to feel guilty about dedicating 2–3 hours to watching movies instead of focusing on my research, I make an exception for World War 2 movies, finding them particularly thought-provoking.

Oppenheimer 2023 was beyond a biography or a back story, telling the most heart-wrecking, world-changing event that changed our international political landscape entirely — but it highlights an unwavering attention on how science could resize itself and its importance, in becoming a mere tool of political interests.

As a fan of Game of Thrones, this reminds me of how Petyr Baelish strongly stated, “knowledge is power”, followed by Cersei Lannister’s most iconic lines “seize him, cut his throat.” When the four guards seized Baelish and had their position ready to cut Baelish’s throat, she proceeded with “wait, I’ve changed my mind. Let him go. Step back three paces, turn around, close your eyes.” Seeing all four guards following each of her orders it seems like Baelish completely disproved his statement at that very moment. Cersei then looked Baelish in his eyes and said, “power is power”.

In the movie, Oppenheimer was portrayed as someone who ruminated matters beyond himself, science was the triumph — combined with his loyalty to the United States and his own political belief that is inherently Marxist, a revolutionist. Now where did it go wrong? How do we determine the moral spectrum on such a theatrical chain of events? Was it, purely moralistic dilemma? Or the consequences human beings tend to ignore in the pursuit of triumph?

To put it in Machiavellian perspectives, in The Prince chapter XVIII, Machiavelli said:

“In order to maintain the state he must often acts against his faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion.”

In the infamous video of Oppenheimer quoting Bhagavad Gita’s chapter 11, verse 32, “Now I am become death — the destroyer of worlds,” which shows his tyrannized moral state, seeing all the consequences of his invention. In the movie, I recall someone questioning Oppenheimer’s newly established sense of morality, suggesting that it came too late, considering the vast scope of his vision and the duration of the Manhattan Project.

Science in Politics: There is No Triumph

We find fulfillment in pursuing a goal that transcends individual interests. This journey towards a greater objective involves a series of interconnected events, some of which may remain beyond our full comprehension.

The question is, what comes after?

The movie and his biography consistently portrayed Heisenberg as the other end of Oppenheimer. That the two are inclined to the two striking edge of power house, pledging loyalties. His objective was relatively straightforward: win the war, develop an atomic bomb before the Nazis could, and, if possible, outpace Heisenberg in the process.

Oppenheimer was portrayed as an epitome of Freudian Eros and Thanatos; one that is sexual and constantly seek for destructions, working towards death. He craved revolutions. He wanted changes, a Marxist. He was determined, ambitious. The movie shows constant terrors came into his mind, disturbed his sleep — but he kept going.

No moral dilemma could stop him, while he knows fully, the possible costs of his conquests.

Triumph, fantasy — the great scientist.

The issue began as I argue, the deterministic outlook that natural and social sciences ought to be differ and considered as a whole different realms. Throughout the history of humankind — both are inherently interrelated to one another, and as grow as natural science started to transform itself to a machine of destructions and developments.

In politics, there is no triumph. There are no ends.

The Prince walks towards a goal that will be possible to be torn down by his nemesis sooner or later. An event is never a final event.

To put scientific invention in a place where it solely becomes a means for political gain should clearly highlight the potential political transformation from the aimed-pivotal moment. Nuclear deterrence. The balance of power.

A scientific invention that is crafted specially by and for a government should be understood as a fireball waiting to destroy its own surrounding.