Everything, because I was against his political master, Mahatma Gandhi. I am against the whole philosophy of Gandhi-ism because it drags people backwards. It is not a forwards movement; it does not take account of the future. It adores, and teaches people to adore, the dead past. He was not ready to accept anything that was invented after the spinning wheel. For him the spinning wheel was the last human invention, for him time had stopped there.
This is stupid: on the spinning wheel you cannot keep your country clothed. If a person spins for eight hours every day, then he will be able to have enough clothes just for himself. Now this is an idiotic ideology – if a person spins for eight hours, then when is he going to earn his food? How is he going to take care of his children, his wife, his old parents? How is he going to have a roof? Gandhi was against simple things: telegraph, telephone, railway. Just think….
But haven’t you yourself said that it’s the technology we’ve developed that’s gotten us into the possibility of a holocaust?
I have said it, but I have said it from a totally different direction. I say it is technology that has disturbed the whole harmony of nature, now it is the duty of technology to put it back – nobody else can do it. I am not against technology; I am simply against the technology which has been growing blindly, unconsciously, unaware of its effects. I would like a better technology – superior to the technology we have – which takes care of nature and human beings. Our whole technology has developed as an effort to destroy.
But no one’s ever found a way to put a cap on science, have they? It has a life of its own.
It has not a life of its own, it is politically dominated. No scientist can manage a nuclear plant: the nuclear plant is owned by the American government or the Soviet Union or some other idiots, and the scientist has to work under the direction of the politicians. This technology has not developed independently. Scientists are simply the servants of the politicians; and the moment they start just a little to do something on their own, their careers are finished.
In the ancient days it was difficult and different. It was difficult to create all that technology is now creating because it needed a certain background which was not available. Second, it was simple: a scientist could work independently in his own small lab. Galileo was independent, Copernicus was independent, but not Albert Einstein.
But even given that, do you see a way to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, when even graduate students have the technology to make a nuclear bomb?