Opinionated Uncertainty

Andie DiBiase
Mr. O’Brien
English IV
7 March 2013

Opinionated Uncertainty

Throughout the past couple years of my life, I have struggled with understanding whether science is necessarily a good thing. Isn’t it science which led us to genetically modified organisms and the country of people absorbed in their smart phones? However, that same science provided cures for diseases and new resources for learning. In the beginning of Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, I was challenged with this same concept when we, as readers, were first introduced to ice-nine. This destructive substance was brought up in a conversation the narrator was having in his pursuit to write a book on Felix Hoenikker. “‘The marines, after almost two-hundred years of wallowing in mud were sick of it,’ said Dr. Breed. ‘The general, as their spokesman, felt that one of the aspects of progress should be that Marines no longer had to fight in mud’” (Vonnegut 31). The marines crawling through the mud is symbolic to me of the struggles we have to go through in life that make us stronger people. Once the solution was made for the marine’s problem, it ended up destroying San Lorenzo and potentially the world. Does that mean that when we invent unnecessary things in science, there is typically not a good outcome? For instance, building robots to be our personal servants is unnecessary and makes a person more lazy. This entire idea of ice-nine challenged my opinion of whether science is good or evil. I believe in some cases science is a beautiful thing and provides great opportunities for learning, but in other instances, science can destroy a person like we saw in Cat’s Cradle.

Just like with science, when it comes to politics, I am rather undecided in the sense that I disagree with many of the political leaders in the United States. In my ideal world, there would be no
such thing as military and war which would solve a lot of the budget issues. Of course, I realize that’s unrealistic and therefore, I am left unsure where my political views stand. When I read this excerpt from Philip Castle’s book, San Lorenzo: the Land, the History, the People, I questioned it a little bit as well as was influenced by it. “‘During the idealistic phase of McCabe’s and Johnson’s reorganization of San Lorenzo, it was announced that the country’s total income would be divided among all adult persons in equal shares’” (90). Wouldn’t this solve our financial issues in the U.S. and form that equality we’re so often in search of? Don’t worry, I know this is unrealistic as well and is probably not the best idea considering how concepts like this fanned out in the past. This idea still very much influenced me and got me thinking that even if San Lorenzo doesn’t necessarily exist, there are other exotic countries out there who possibly are a good representation of Vonnegut’s made up location. In a possible country somewhere out there, people aren’t affected by lack of money or too much money. Life without revolving our daily routines around money would definitely increase the happiness level. I believe along the lines of this excerpt from the book that money should be disregarded and not get in the way of the quality of life.  
Now that I have proven myself practically insane for desiring these ideas, I digress to religion and how my personal views go against the common beliefs. Once again, I have struggled through understanding religion and what I believe in. This involved long car rides with my dad discussing the presence of God, attending multiple different churches over the years and reading many books hoping they would give me some sort of answer. The unofficial conclusion I’ve come to is that I’m not meant to be a religious person. On the other hand, I am a spiritual person who finds that spirit in meditation and nature rather than organized religion. So even though I don’t believe in organized religion for myself, I do believe in the acceptance of all religions. This opinion was challenged when early in Cat’s Cradle I read “the first sentence in the Books of Bokonon is this: ‘All of the true things I’m about to tell you are shameless lies’” (8). What if all religions are based on lies? Actually, there is technically no proof for any type of common religion. Does that make it all lies? I think people believe in what they want to in order to feel part of something and have some sense of direction in their lives. Religious faith, or spirituality in my case, is a typical way to do this. Yet, after thinking about this quote from the book and organized religion in our world today, I think it’s okay to have a religion based on lies if it brings happiness. When that religion starts imposing their views on those who don’t want to accept them, then it’s crossing the line. As I continue my constant search for what I believe in, I do know I believe that it’s important to have tolerance for everyone else’s views on politics, religion, and science.