The Diaphragm of Cruelty

Science is neither good, as the dominant thought wants to sell, not bad, as anarcho-primitivists denounced. It is not even neutral, as scientists would lead us to believeavoiding in this way its own responsibility and letting others take the decisions. In fact, does not the whole scientific paradigm derive precisely from this transference of guilt? The question is not whether psychoanalysis is a science, but whether the science as institution is not a huge collective therapy for Western civilization.
Let's put it clear: science is good and bad at the same time, it cannot be good without being at once bad. Its Christian heritage has made us forget this basic fact. It is good for the privileged who can use it to their advantage, but it is not only bad, but cruel for the millions of scapegoats that the scientific and the technological progress sacrifice every day. But, in order to hide this evidence, the system has built a sort of diaphragm --or systemic propaganda-- which is adjusted to give the image of the science that it wants to portray, and which is closed when the scenes of greater cruelty happen. 

Image after William Hogarth's The reward of cruelty (The Four Stages of Cruelty, 1751) [pd], old Kodak/Ball Bearing shutter [ua] and execution table for death penalty [ua].