The other aspect of this that intrigues me is how Snow is held accountable for what he originally saw as a 1-hour late afternoon lecture. Imagine having something you said once in a public lecture – that wasn’t necessarily given in a profoundly influential setting – picked apart and critiqued for the next 50 years. I think everything of mine would crumble in the first 5 minutes!!

I’m glad Gillian Beer was on top of the underlying issues here back in January – that’s an event I was sorry to miss. This week’s Nature editorial also focused on the “improving humanity’s lot” issue, which I was pleased to see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/459010a.html

On the romantic connotations of suffering, I didn’t get the chance to expand on this in the blog, but it doesn’t take too much to unearth similar thinking – even today! I listening to Dean Kamen on Monday focusing on his efforts to get distributed water purification systems out into developing countries. His system isn’t the cheapest, but it does provide an extremely high quality product (medical grade distilled water). And importantly, it enables the simple/low maintenance production of good-tasting potable water from any source in a plug-and-play package. But in talking with agencies that could help develop and distribute the system, he met with an attitude of “chlorine tablets are cheaper, and anyway, the locals like the taste they give the water.” In other words, a bit of suffering is good for the soul – as long as it’s someone else’s suffering.

Similar attitudes are seen in groups around the world that oppose technological advances in favor of the status quo – usually while enjoying the benefits of such advances themselves.

Anyway, end of hobby horse!

There has been so much high-jacking of Snow’s commentary for personal/group agendas. It reminds me of a two-cultures event at the Tate in January, when Gillian Beer dragged delegates back to Snow’s real motivation of improving the global human lot, and that the ‘divide’ was an inhibiting factor – not some academic debating point.

Sure – any romantic connotation to suffering certainly needs putting to bed. Who has time for that?

We might also remember that the period between Snow’s lecture and follow-on comments, e.g. in 1962, saw the start of the 10 year International Biological Programme (IBP), under Edgar Barton Worthington – a first attempt to manage rationally the world’s reserves in the face of a changing environment and rising population – sound familiar? Point being – this sort of global thinking was in the air and taking off.

And indeed – just to throw this in, I think the very present driver of climate strange, with its interlinked highlighting of energy/biodiversity/science/technology/economics/developing nations – even population, may push the real Snow agenda along more than anything else….By necessity….which is the basis on which most folk seem to act.

I enjoy Dawkinsian scrapping in favour of science and rationality as much as the next person, but we should – also – focus on the practicalities of the word ‘humanity’ – rather than its academic incarnation.