Precis - The Abolition of Man

Lewis argues that mankind will be the source of his own destruction. Of course putting it in those terms is an over simplification. It seems that man has become obsessed with conquering nature. Lewis argues that we are only able to see the larger, more grand, biologic process and in doing so we lose our position of power in the world. We stop doing things that make sense for us and our immediate futures and make sacrifices to benefit a future that we will never see. Lewis illustrates this idea with the man dying of tuberculosis who considers himself a casualty. The man in the story did not mind his own death because he could rationalize that it was serving the greater purpose, would allow us to win, but is he really a winner if he’s dead? We continue to look at the bigger picture, a picture which does not include humanistic concerns, and that puts mankind in great jeopardy.

Because the argument makes an appeal to basic humanistic concerns it seems clear that the audience is the basic human. What do we mean b the basic human? Well, mostly anyone but the scientist. I see myself in that group because I don’t call into question my human impulses, like scratching an itch. I just respond accordingly. Because I see myself as an average person it makes me more susceptible to the argument. I agree that our conquest of nature becomes futile. However, I can see this argument as having several objections. Like many texts, its not enough to simply expose a problem, you must offer a solution. Lewis’ solution of creating and maintaining a Tao is not clear to me. I think an unanswered objection is that anything could be a sort of Tao including believing in science.

It seems to me that Lewis has a more specific idea of what a Tao should be and not so much what it could be. For him I think the stakes where human decency and common sense. Science can be cold and heartless, but Lewis believes we must subscribe to a value system where there is good and bad. Without a Tao good and bad are just words which can be applied to anything. I think Lewis is most definitely attempting to alter conduct. He wants people to exist in their present condition and behave accordingly.

I find two sentences which clearly state what I believe to be Lewis’ thesis. The first reads thusly “Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man.” I chose this sentence because it highlights the irony of the entire situation. The more we do the more vulnerable we become. We are lucky enough to be able to control ourselves and behave in a manner that supports our own well being, but if we become subject to our natural wants and instincts then we leap into the unknown, into chance, which ultimately destroys us. The other sentence I find exemplary of Lewis’ thesis reads “to see through all things is the same as not to see.” This again highlights the seeming futility of the scientific project at hand, but also makes us realize that we cannot understand everything. We cannot attempt to explain everything because we explain away explanation itself. We lose our capacity to understand the new things we explain. He writes that the goal of seeing through something must be to see whatever it is on the other side.

There are three particularly interesting pieces of evidence that Lewis uses to illustrate his point; the aeroplane, the wireless, and the contraceptive. Each item is an innovation of science which would seem to empower mankind, but it actually strips him of t. First you have the airplane or aeroplane as he knew it. Sure, now we have the ability to travel further distances faster, but my physical self has not become any stronger. I now rely on someone else to get me from point A to B and one man can withhold that privilege from me. I become subject to someone else and lose some of my own power. The contraceptive is an extremely interesting and poignant example because it is a blatant example of destruction of humans. If we naturally produce offspring through reproduction why should we manufacture things to reverse and halt that process? For Lewis it not only doesn’t make sense, but contributes to the destruction of our species. It’s here where Lewis may go a little too far. He believes that each generation is subject to the next. We have the power to decide whether a possible life come into existence, however Lewis believes that one dominant sets the tone for the billions of people to come afterwards. It seems to me that every era equally impacts the prior one. Although the influence of the Romans may seem more apparent, I think the discoveries and mindsets of societies before and after have played just as crucial role, especially since Rome was influenced b the time period before it.

Despite Lewis’ extreme argument, it seems completely plausible that man could serve as its own destroyer. We continually analyze away things that should be most pertinent to us and what we’ll be left with may not be something we want. Lewis states that the last thing to be conquered will be human nature which makes sense. We can’t explain why we art h way we are, because if we did then we wouldn’t be that way. We would be subject to what nature tells us to want, devoid of the human capacity to make our own decisions. Our posterity would suffer because they would be subject to chance. It makes sense that the abolition of man would come from man. Let us hope that this is not the case.

-Isaac Jackson