The last 60-70 years of the twentieth century might be called the modern era of biological warfare. During this period, nation states developed biological weapons to be used on a far-away “European battlefield”. Even after ratification of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, the most impressive BW program in the history of mankind continued for 20 years, effectively cloaked in secrecy. Yet between 1970 and 1990, little thought was given to the possibility of a biological warfare or biological terrorist attack on US cities. Funding for biological defense in the US was minimal and most of the federal government was oblivious about the threat.
In fiscal year 2000, the US government has committed more than $1.5 billion to military biodefense and another $1 billion to domestic preparedness for biological attack. What happened? In 1991, the US decisively engaged the Iraqi force, demonstrating vast conventional technical superiority while the world watched on CNN. Shortly thereafter, with economic implosion in the Former Soviet Union, our concern turned to the fate of tens of thousands of Russian scientists and engineers who had developed an impressive programÖwhich may never be surpassed in scale or offensive capability. We feared that lesser nations might turn to now jobless Russian bioweaponeers for help in building their “great equalizer.” All this occurred with a backdrop of increasing evidence that the dual-use nature of bioweapons programs might make treaties unverifiable. Here at home, the equally dual-use biotechnological revolution screamed forward while novels imprinted the horror of bioterrorism on our minds and experts proclaimed that “there are no…
… middle of paper …
…se who would use these breakthroughs for evil—taking away their freedom through effective intelligence programs and law enforcement—we will be more likely to stay steps ahead as we use the technologies for good, and provide an additional deterrent to the threat.
Bioterrorism presents a daunting problem to our free society, especially at the unique intersection of politics and biotechnology that occurred during the last decade of the 20th century. We may have been lulled by our prosperity and strategic isolation from major conflict into a sense of invulnerability. However, we are vulnerable todayÖand there is no reason to believe that will change in the near future. We must carefully evaluate the real threat, make the hard cost-benefit decisions and continue to build a fully integrated defense against the distortion of biology by those who would do us harm.
Oneness in Walden, Nature and American Scholar
Oneness in Walden, Nature and American Scholar
Some of the most prominent works which express a relationship between the individual and nature are undoubtedly Walden by Henry David Thoreau and the essays written by Ralph Waldo Emerson, specifically Nature and The American Scholar. In each of these works, an idea of wholeness, “oneness,” with nature is expressed. Thoreau and Emerson both believe that man, in order to live a full, happy life, must live in harmony with nature. Both writers share several ideas as to how this oneness with nature can be achieved, and its significance.
Emerson, in his Scholar address, states that nature is the most important influence on man and his thinking. Because in nature there is no beginning and no end, it is circular, or whole. In this, nature is like God, and like man’s spirit, because there is no beginning or end to it, just a circular movement that creates a whole. We also see this idea of a whole in man. Emerson describes men as not many singular entities, but as parts of One Man. God created man as a whole, but with diverse aspects and abilities so that he may better function. As God created man as a whole, so he created nature as whole, and man as one with nature so that he may function better spiritually. In Walden, we are given Thoreau’s perspective of One Man and nature. Thoreau believes he can better understand society as a whole by living outside of it, by living in the simplicity offered by nature.
Thoreau and Emerson both believe that to transcend and achieve this oneness with nature, man must educate himself mentally and spiritually. While both writers recognize the importance of books and reading as a precursor to spiritual growth, they also both feel that one ca…
… middle of paper …
…nscendentalists, through their theoretical essays and literature, made a strong case for man to recognize the importance of nature in his life. Emerson felt that men who did not achieve this oneness with nature could not experience God or the Divine, and thus their lives were not fulfilling or spiritually whole. In Walden, Thoreau’s main purpose is to celebrate life and to help men recognize the potential fullness and elation of life by making them aware of their own ability for spiritual growth. In order to achieve spiritual growth, or transcend, Thoreau feels that one must first evaluate his life and be willing to change it. Other artists of this time echoed Thoreau and Emerson’s sentiments in their own creativity, their own journey to spiritual fulfillment, which only strengthened the premise that man and nature were one and that man without nature was not whole.