In this segment we like to call “From The Archives”, The Fine Line Online showcases really old articles that we just happened to find lying around in our vast, vast archives. Or maybe it’s just a gimmick so we can write historical gags. The world may never know. Anyway, here’s the first article we found, carbon-dated to 5,002 B.C.:

Debate rages over "fire-engineering" technology

A Cave, Mesopotamia – The discovery of fire 50 years ago revolutionized the scientific community. Finally, we knew what happened to those forests that mysteriously turned into piles of black powder when we weren’t looking. The discovery of fire also answered philosophical questions that has plagued man since the beginning, like “What is the Sun made of?” But nobody has been able to put practical use to this knowledge – until now. The recent completion of the Human Fire Project has led to leaps ahead in fire-related technology, which could lead to a variety of improvements for the human way of life, and even to the creation of the first man-made fire. But despite the possible benefits of this new technology, many critics are warning that the use of fire should be restricted or even banned until the severe philosophical and ethical questions over its use can be resolved.

The first area of this technology under debate is the technique for creating “fire-modified foods.” In theory, holding a piece of raw meat over a fire will alter the structure of the food to a state known scientifically as “cooked”. Recent advances in stick technology have made this possible without severe injury. Cooked food can be better tasting, have a longer shelf life, and even help to combat certain diseases. But critics warn of the possible dangers associate with cooked food. “The food just hasn’t been tested sufficiently yet,” warns pyroethicist Og Ug. “I mean, theoretically, there’s no way for cooked food to harm us, but fire engineering is still a new technology, and we don’t have a complete understanding of all the possible risks yet. There may be long-term side effects to a diet of cooked food that we haven’t foreseen.” Others are wary of cooked foods because of the possibility of the fire used on the food being reactivated in the stomach. “There’s no evidence for reactivation of fire-treated food,” Dr. Ug continued, “but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Today everyone starts eating cooking food, tomorrow people start spontaneously combusting left and right, and then what do we do?”

Another area of hot debate is the recently developed technique of using shards of flint to create fires anywhere. These so-called “pluripotent stem stones” promise to allow humans to bring fires to our own caves, where they can be used for warmth, light, or to create fire-modified foods. Many have decried the use and collection of stem stones, however, for fear that the delicate balance of nature may be upset. “Current theory holds that all fires are created from stem stones,” said a spokesman for the environmental activist organization Greendeath. “If we harvest too many stem stones from nature, there won’t be enough fires to control the population of trees. Humanity will be overrun by forests; there will be so many trees we won’t be able to move, and eventually we’ll all suffocate. Besides, there’s no reason to use the stem stones found naturally; promising research is currently underway into the production of so-called ‘adult stem stones’ which, in theory, can be produced from fires that are already burning.” To date, the adult stem stone technology has not reached the same potency as the ordinary stem stones, and several researchers have been treated for severe burns. Meanwhile, in an attempt to resolve the situation, President Bush and the government have restricted research funding to programs using fire from fires that are already burning, in an attempt to curb the creation of any new fires using stem stones.

Beyond stem stones themselves, some people are opposed to even the concept of a man-made fire. “The control and subversion of fire, one of nature’s most powerful elements, is ethically and morally wrong,” said theologian B. Blarg. “It’s like playing God. I mean, look how fires are created in nature – huge bolts of lightning come out of the sky and light forests on fire! Could it possibly be any clearer that they come straight from God? If He had intended for us to be able to make fire, He would have made us so we could shoot lightning bolts.” Besides the religious groups’ concerns, other societal concerns have been brought up. “Being able to just make fire like that, out of nowhere, changes the nature of fire,” stated Dr. Ug. “Before, if you needed fire to see while you painted your cave or something, you had to go out and find a burning flame, catch a stick on fire, and bring it back with you carefully, shielding it from the wind, nurturing it. With this new technology, fire just becomes another commodity, just another consumer good. It’s a major concern.” When asked about the balance of these risks with the possible benefits, Dr. Ug replied, “The dangers here really outweigh any possible benefits. I mean, sure, it could increase the health of the average person, but would extending the lifespan to 25 or 30 or even 40 years be good? Of course, we really don’t know.”

Dr. Ug also cautions against the possible ramifications that fire engineering technology could have on society in general. “In the past, fire has always been available to whoever could find it, and there was plenty for everyone. With man-made fire a reality, those who are the richest can afford to buy the most fire, while the poor can’t afford any fire at all. This could lead to a severe widening of the class gap into ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’, eventually leading to two different species as the rich with fire oppressed the poor without. It’s a very real threat, and we as a people have to deal with this problem and the many others raised by this new concept before we allow the development of this dangerous new technology. Who knows what might happen?”







Copyright 2001 The Fine Line Online. See our disclaimer.