The Trouble With Kittens

[chefranden]

You live your life applying the scientific method whether you recognize it or not.  Every time you say "I wonder if..." and then go about trying to determine that "if", you are applying the scientific method.  The scientific method is nothing more than the recognition of methods that work for discerning knowledge.  You are governed by it whether you like it or not.

 

The scientific method is axiomatic, in that you must apply it in any attempt to try to reject it.  The inquirey you have instigated in this thread is using the scientific method you seem to wish to denigrate.

 

I'm not sure that I can answer this one yet. At first glance it looks like, "everyone operates on faith." Then one must wonder why an "axiomatic" thought process must be taught and why an "axiomatic" thought process had to be invented. Certainly I'm trying to be logical, but I don't know that equates with scientific. Maybe it does. I'll ponder some more.

 

I don't think I'm all the way to denigration yet. I do look around and see the destruction that scientific wonders cause, so I have to "wonder if..." (in regards to science) the cure is worse than the disease -- just as when I saw the sort comings of Christianity, I had do wonder if the cure was worse than the disease. Here are some of my questions.

 

1. Science assumes that is the best way to find out about something. Is it?

2. Science produces miracle after miracle. Is that a good enough reason to reverance it, considering the cultural and environmental damage that goes along with each wonder?

3. Science produces ever more efficient ways of killing other humans. Right now we are producing 70 dead Iraqis for each American dead. In Vietnam we only managed 35 per dead American. Isn't that sufficient reason to consider that science may have some fatal flaw?

4. Science seeks to objectify a subjective world. Is that logical?

5. Science has given us more efficent ways to hunt Whales, Blue Fin Tuna and Cod. Now they are almost gone. Why should I not wonder if ever increasing efficency is really a good thing and if its source, science, is the cause?

 

If you have the time, please answer the questions in my last post.

[spamandham]

In response to your request to answer these questions:

 

1. What is the import of such a distinction?  Will non-institutional use of the method make the destructive side effects of scientifically derived wonders recede or disappear?  If so are there any significant non-institutional uses of the method?

 

The importance is that science plays a role in your everyday life, and in the life of prehistoric men as well. Tracking animals required the use of the scientific method. Intelligence and seeking knowledge are intertwined.

 

2. What is the difference between "Christianity (or religion x) would produce good results if it weren't for people", and "Science would produce good results if it weren't for people"?

 

Science does produce good results; knowledge. You are arguing against empowering men with knowledge?

 

3. I would like to agree with you, but I fear this statement is a dictum of Mother Culture.  In order to work, the method must objectify the subject of its investigation.  The method must divorce the subject from as many of its relationships as possible, hopefully leaving only one.  It is assumed that the rat in the maze has no intentions of its own, which is destructive enough, but it is also assumed that there is no relationship between the rat and the researcher, because relationship automatically dispels objectivity.

 

The scientific method is really pretty basic. It assumes that nature is predictable (induction), and it emphasizes attempts to falsify assumptions, thus chiselling away the crap from the gold. What is bad about either of these?

 

Your complaint seems to be more against the nature of man than against science really. Even ancient men faced the problem of exhausting resources, which is why they were nomads.

[chefranden]

The scientific method is axiomatic, in that you must apply it in any attempt to try to reject it.  The inquirey you have instigated in this thread is using the scientific method you seem to wish to denigrate.

 

My cultural side wants to agree with you. I'm steeped in the SM is axiomatic myself. It would be like saying gravity don't suck! (There are some bishops scientists like Dr. Van Flandern that say gravity don't suck -- it pushes. But we know they are raving heritics, gone astray on bent space.)

 

I used to say, "better science means better living." But I've seen enough to know that isn't the case. I think I've may have said that science can use the method to figure out that what it has given to the world, probably will kill it. So if I'm using the method to figure out that method may not be the best idea, so be it. I often do the same with theology, to show that Christianity isn't such a good idea and nobody calls me on that.

 

It is perhaps easier in the west to believe the mantra "Science will save us," because we can afford enough of the fruits to help us ignore the ever increasing slime they grow on. Don't you find it interesting that when Science says "Global Warming, by by," or "Peak Oil welcome to starvation," we manage to say, "what is that buzzing in my ears? Ommm, Science will save us, Science will save us." "Sure Science brought us our deaths, but nevertheless it will save us" Seems I've heard that in some other context.

 

Don't the anomolies bother you? Don't they make you question the creed? You mentioned the primitive hunter used the method to follow game. If that is the case what bit of wisdom kept him from using the method to make an A-bomb and be content for 100,000 years with a bit of sharp rock on the end of a stick, and how did we forget that bit of wisdom?

[pitchu]

Chef,

 

Maybe it's just the geezerdom that you and I share, but I, too, see, when looking across the course of my lifetime, a shift in my attitudes about science and alleged progress.

 

At 20, one of the things I most admired about Ayn Rand was her conviction that we needn't worry about the sun burning itself out because the great mind of man would find a suitable substitute. Now I see that view of hers and my smug acceptance of it as the height of hubris. And I see hubris climbing to even greater heights in both science and religion.

 

It's not that I have such an elevated opinion of humility, either. I think there's nothing humble about unmasking hubris. In fact, it's daring. IMO, the newest, bravest minds are the ones calling into question the premises and acts of the old newest bravest minds. This, to me, signals true progress.

 

Rushing on, lemming-like, with certain axiomatic directives engendered during the past mere 5 or 6 hundred years of life on this planet is the equivalent of letting the toddler rule the household.

 

In an earlier post, you mentioned the "progressive" drive to overcome the messiness of nature. I immediately thought of how medical science has not only given short shrift to women in its research, but has actually harmed women through extrapolating to them findings made in studies of men. Women's hormonal cycles have been a constant messy agitation to researchers, causing controls in studies to go out the window. Yet, much of medical science has gone even farther than seeing humans as the rightful rulers of an objectified world -- it's made male humans the rulers. (Any similarity indicated, here, between medical science and religious fundyism is purely coincidental. )

 

The messiness of life on earth is inherent to it, and can't be "fixed" without terrible consequences.

 

Keep on keepin' on, Chef.

[spamandham]

Don't the anomolies bother you?  Don't they make you question the creed?

 

Some claim knowledge that they haven't rightly obtained. Whether they are called priests or scientists doesn't matter. Those who notice anomolies and do not realize they are revealing a flaw in knowledge are practicing faith.

 

You mentioned the primitive hunter used the method to follow game.  If that is the case what bit of wisdom kept him from using the method to make an A-bomb and be content for 100,000 years with a bit of sharp rock on the end of a stick, and how did we forget that bit of wisdom?

 

The difference between them and us is that we eons of accumulated knowledge and results to stand on that they didn't have. Domestication of grain and animals was the catalyt that led to exponential gains in population and knowledge. At this point, we are now dependent on increases in knowledge to prevent mass depopulation. Pandora's box has been opened. To go back now would result in mass death.

 

There is no good global solution. You can only concentrate on your own lot. If you want a simpler life, it's there for the taking.

[chefranden]

Chef,

 

Maybe it's just the geezerdom that you and I share, but I, too, see, when looking across the course of my lifetime, a shift in my attitudes about science and alleged progress.

 

At 20, one of the things I most admired about Ayn Rand was her conviction that we needn't worry about the sun burning itself out because the great mind of man would find a suitable substitute.  Now I see that view of hers and my smug acceptance of it as the height of hubris.  And I see hubris climbing to even greater heights in both science and religion.

 

It's not that I have such an elevated opinion of humility, either.  I think there's nothing humble about unmasking hubris.  In fact, it's daring.  IMO, the newest, bravest minds are the ones calling into question the premises and acts of the old newest bravest minds.  This, to me, signals true progress.

 

Rushing on, lemming-like, with certain axiomatic directives engendered during the past mere 5 or 6 hundred years of life on this planet is the equivalent of letting the toddler rule the household.

 

In an earlier post, you mentioned the "progressive" drive to overcome the messiness of nature.  I immediately thought of how medical science has not only given short shrift to women in its research, but has actually harmed women through extrapolating to them findings made in studies of men.  Women's hormonal cycles have been a constant messy agitation to researchers, causing controls in studies to go out the window.  Yet, much of medical science has gone even farther than seeing humans as the rightful rulers of an objectified world -- it's made male humans the rulers. (Any similarity indicated, here, between medical science and religious fundyism is purely coincidental.  )

 

The messiness of life on earth is inherent to it, and can't be "fixed" without terrible consequences.

 

Keep on keepin' on, Chef.

 

Thanks Pitchu! Its nice to know I'm not a total lunitic.

 

I do think that this domination thing is male. I wish the ladies would quit going along. How about women's unions with sex strikes? Dang that's probably a male chauvinst idea. But I'd bet it would work. It has trained me pretty good.

[chefranden]

Some claim knowledge that they haven't rightly obtained.  Whether they are called priests or scientists doesn't matter.  Those who notice anomolies and do not realize they are revealing a flaw in knowledge are practicing faith.

Could you elaborate on this a bit. I'm not getting it.

 

The difference between them and us is that we eons of accumulated knowledge and results to stand on that they didn't have.  Domestication of grain and animals was the catalyt that led to exponential gains in population and knowledge.  At this point, we are now dependent on increases in knowledge to prevent mass depopulation.  Pandora's box has been opened.  To go back now would result in mass death.

I don't think I'm suggesting going back -- physically impossible you know. But, I am suggesting that maybe we shouldn't go forward on on this particular road any more. Continual exponential growth kills the organism. Of course in the end it doesn't matter if I don't like it. If we end up being too stupid to see that we are eating ourselves out of house and home, then so be it. There is nothing special about our species, save that we are it. Evolution got along with out us for millions (maybe billions) of years; I'm sure it will do fine if it has to do without us again. I don't know if anybody has noticed but we are already the last of the hominids.

 

I think that if you look you will notice that the exponential growth of Science and Technology is correlative to the discovery and development of fossil fuels. Exponential population growth is also correlative to the same. I think it should also be clear that the use of these fuels is the basis for habitat destruction, including the destruction of our own habitat. You are partly right about agriculture being the beginning, but only about a certain form of agriculture. For example, there are certain species of ants that practice agriculture, but they in no way threaten life in general or themselves in particular. There are also indigenous forms of agriculture that don't destroy the land.

 

I don't think that our science culture is the top of a sturdy pyramid of discovery and technology. It is really top heavy and bound to come down in a storm. Please see attached illustration.

 

There is no good global solution.  You can only concentrate on your own lot.  If you want a simpler life, it's there for the taking.

 

Absolutely! There is no one right way. However, ask the Yanonomi how the dominate culture feels about letting them live their simple life.

[spamandham]

Could you elaborate on this a bit.  I'm not getting it.

 

High cholesterol levels are almost universally believed to cause heart disease. Yet, the correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease is very small if it exists at all. This is a serious anomaly that should be getting people to question the premise, but they mostly don't. Medical science is the worst offender in practicing what amounts to faith, although the difficulty of performing ethical experiments does compound their problem.

 

Continual exponential growth kills the organism.

 

It is the nature of life to expand exponentially until something starts to kill you off. This is just as true for humans as it is for single cell organisms. The simpler solution is to stop breeding if we think we are stretching our resources. In a little over 80 years, the population of the earth could be reduced as close to zero as desired through this mechanism.

 

Personally, I don't think we are anywhere near capacity. I'm not suggesting we should try to push it that far. As we approach capacity, resources become more and more expensive. The cost of raising children begins to exceed the value of having them, and people will quit reproducing. This has already started in most of the West. Europe is now worrying about declining populations. If not for immigration, the same thing would be happening in the US.

 

I think that if you look you will notice that the exponential growth of Science and Technology is correlative to the discovery and development of fossil fuels.  Exponential population growth is also correlative to the same.  I think it should also be clear that the use of these fuels is the basis for habitat destruction, including the destruction of our own habitat.

 

While it may be true that fossil fuels result in habitat destruction, we can observe the massive habitat destruction in South America as the result of poor farming techniques. While farms are returning to fallow up North due to reduced land requirements (because of technology insertion in farming), further South they are wiping out jungles and species in an attempt to keep up using inefficient farming techniques.

 

People will gladly destroy everything around them if it means preserving themselves and their children. If you wish to offer up a solution, it must keep that instinct in mind.

[pitchu]

While it may be true that fossil fuels result in habitat destruction, we can observe the massive habitat destruction in South America as the result of poor farming techniques.  While farms are returning to fallow up North due to reduced land requirements (because of technology insertion in farming), further South they are wiping out jungles and species in an attempt to keep up using inefficient farming techniques.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spamandham, can you give examples or references for the three statements bolded? I'm not sure what, specifically, you're citing. Thanks.

[spamandham]

Spamandham, can you give examples or references for the three statements bolded? I'm not sure what, specifically, you're citing.  Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the massive habitat destruction in South America as the result of poor farming techniques. / further South they are wiping out jungles and species in an attempt to keep up using inefficient farming techniques.

 

This is really 1 thought rather than 2, so I'll just answer that one thought. I was referring to deforestation in the Amazon. Here's a quick overview article. They are basically burning the jungle down, planting/grazing on it until it runs out of nutrients and then moving on burning down more. If they used modern farming techniques, they would not need to keep burning down more and more jungle.

 

farms are returning to fallow up North due to reduced land requirements (because of technology insertion in farming),

 

This is based on my own anecdotal observation of what's going on in Kansas according to my grandfather. It could be off the mark in general.

[pitchu]

If they used modern farming techniques, they would not need to keep burning down more and more jungle.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's the use of the word, "they" that's thrown me. It seems to me that the "they" of the indigenous populations did pretty well by their jungles for hundreds (thousands?) of years, and that it's only been recently that the "they" of rapacious multi-national companies have disastrously changed this picture all over the globe. The practices of these giants have more to do with greed and hubris than with eschewing better technologies. It would seem that the peoples with no technology whatsoever are blameless.

 

Sue Branford is an expert on Brazil, now working with BBC World Service, and a part of her interview, below, would seem to support this view. The complete interview:

 

http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interviews/branford.html

Well it is difficult to define what is 'former rain forest land', because so much of Brazil was originally, five hundred years ago when the Portuguese arrived there, covered by forests, but I think within my lifetime, just twenty years ago when I first visited the region - I think this comes within the definition of recently cleared forest, and it's certainly some of the areas where they're buying beef now - certainly was forest then.

I mean, I don't actually think McDonald's are one of the main culprits. I think they actually form part of a whole industry which is moving on into the forest taking away land from the original inhabitants; the rubber tappers, the Indians, cutting down this forest and creating these big cattle ranches which are very, very destructive - they're part of a whole industry. I don't think they're actually more culpable than any of the other cattle ranchers and in fact probably they do take more care than many of the other beefburger producers in Brazil. But this whole industry has been moving in and has been fuelling this extraordinary destructive process which is doing so much damage to the Amazon forest.

 

It really is heart-rending when I remember these areas which were wonderful forest just twenty years ago, and when I went there last year and flew over the region now...and it's devastated -just pockets of forest left. They've cleared the land to create these cattle ranches, and then there's been so much soil leaching, so much erosion that you're actually looking at barren land which doesn't support anything now. It is actually an enormous waste of what was one of the world's most wonderful resources.

 

(I don't know what the picture in Kansas is, unless the fields left fallow are the ones that used to belong to family farms, now gone because of agribusiness, but maybe you could clarify what your grandfather's reports are.)

[spamandham]

(I don't know what the picture in Kansas is, unless the fields left fallow are the ones that used to belong to family farms, now gone because of agribusiness, but maybe you could clarify what your grandfather's reports are.)

 

You guessed it already.

[pitchu]

You guessed it already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeh. Well... Jeeze...

Sad, don't you think?

[chefranden]

the massive habitat destruction in South America as the result of poor farming techniques.  / further South they are wiping out jungles and species in an attempt to keep up using inefficient farming techniques.

 

This is really 1 thought rather than 2, so I'll just answer that one thought.  I was referring to deforestation in the Amazon.  Here's a quick overview article.  They are basically burning the jungle down, planting/grazing on it until it runs out of nutrients and then moving on burning down more.  If they used modern farming techniques, they would not need to keep burning down more and more jungle.

 

farms are returning to fallow up North due to reduced land requirements (because of technology insertion in farming),

 

This is based on my own anecdotal observation of what's going on in Kansas according to my grandfather.  It could be off the mark in general.

 

Aside from beef ranchers, those trying to do some family sized farming, because they were starving in the city slums, have no access to "efficient scientific methods". that is they don't have enough money to buy fossil fuel based fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides or the equipment needed to use it. What kind of science tells people to prairie out of rain forest? Economics I bet! The law of short term gain no matter what is destroyed. We do it here too. Did you know that it is illegal to buy old growth timber rights just to let the trees stand?

 

We won't be happy until every frelling tree is a board or ass wipe! It is a wonder that we haven't invented a vacuum to suck ants out of their holes and grind them into dog food or fake french fries.

[spamandham]

It is a wonder that we haven't invented a vacuum to suck ants out of their holes and grind them into dog food or fake french fries.

 

If it works on fire ants, sign me up for one.

[pitchu]

If it works on fire ants, sign me up for one. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aaiiieee! Those debbils keep me out of the South, fer shure.

[Panther]

We won't be happy until every frelling tree is a board or ass wipe!  It is a wonder that we haven't invented a vacuum to suck ants out of their holes and grind them into dog food or fake french fries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Chef,

How true! *nods*

 

You know, I have been pondering this exact subject lately myself. With my recent deconversion from the religion, it has led me to seek more knowledge about humanity in general on a deeper level. I started studying evolution further than I had previously and began to realize things that were a little startling when I REALLY thought about it.

 

I DO see the big picture here that you are trying to convey. It is troubling, isn't it?

When I studied how man came into existence through evolution, it also hit me that although we are at the top of the food chain, we really aren't any different than any other life form. We were just lucky to have evolved into what we are.....

 

I find it ironic that humans are actually "too smart for their own good."

 

You're so right....in all our selfishness, we are going to wipe ourselves out eventually. It doesn't matter to mother nature....she's just going to keep on keeping on. Other life forms will spring up and we will be nothing more than what existed during a certain time period.

That's if we don't burn the earth out first.....

 

I get it. I totally get it. It's nice to be able to ponder this with someone else.

I have been caught up lately in trying to re-figure out my purpose....and purpose of our life in general as a species. Once I had let go of the "afterlife" thoughts, it started looking kind of dismal on certain levels. LOL

 

It's funny in a way.....we think of ourselves first. We really do think the world was made for JUST US. That seems to be a springboard of thought in which everything we do follows that mindset.

On a very, very deep level....I DO see the "nature" of our kind. Of course on a primal level, we are wired for survival so this is understandable, this selfishness.

But if we "step out of the box" so to say, just for the sake of thinking further......

how important are we REALLY in the scheme of ALL life? How far are we from what we think and what IS?

 

Thanks for listening to my thoughts. I've enjoyed this and would love to continue talking with you. I can say for sure that these realizations have been humbling at the very least.

 

(hugs)

[spamandham]

how important are we REALLY in the scheme of ALL life?

 

Why would we we not be the most important life?

[pitchu]

Why would we we not be the most important life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Important to whom? To what?

What's the context for "important?"

 

(I ask not out of belligerance, but only to know your thinking.)

[spamandham]

Important to whom?  To what?

What's the context for "important?"

 

(I ask not out of belligerance, but only to know your thinking.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Important to us.

[chefranden]

Why would we we not be the most important life?

 

 

It is not as simple as this. It is not about being important. It is about being entitled. It is about feeling and acting as if we are entitled to everything. We Americans feel most entitled of all. For example: how dare the Venezualans threaten us with witholding oil? Somehow, we feel thier oil is ours by right.

 

The thing that is wrong with assuming that the Earth is ours is that it causes us to act suicidally and take the rest of life with us. In addition though we feel that Man Kind is entitled to the Earth and Salmon are not, in effect only certain humans are entitled. Most humans are not entitled. Most humans work to fill the pockets of the self-selected few, and they do so because they are promised that the "system" will let them get "ahead", or because they will be forced to starve if they don't.

 

Most of the entitlement is held by Caucasion Males. When brown skinned peoples Venezualans or Iraqis challange that, woe unto them! What is worse though is that Salmon, Bumble Bees, and Polar Bears don't even get to challange. To even consider that the should have a voice in how their home is treated, would be considered crazy. They are literally "dumb" animals because they are not allowed to speak. There are billions of people that are equally "dumb", because they are very little more entitled than Salmon. Go watch Star Trek IV again. It is a very crude morality story, but it makes the point. We have quite likely destroyed what is needed for us to continue as a species once the oil runs out.

 

There is an Elephant in the living room that most of us pretend isn't there. I know that it is there, but I still live as if it isn't -- mostly because I don't know what else to do.

[Panther]

Why would we we not be the most important life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi!

I think Chef answered pretty well with some great thoughts.

 

I'm thinking in terms of the "big picture." Really, life is life. WE have determined that WE are the most important of species. Of course, to each and every life form out there, THEY are the most important.

I think it's all based on perspective.

 

Whomever is in the position of answering would naturally say "themselves" since we are all wired with survival instincts.

 

For me, when I really started looking at evolution, that's when I really began to think a little harder about all of this.

[pitchu]

Important to us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And I understand that. I even sometimes get shocked by the few people I've met who, for instance, treat their pets like children; or by the enormous amounts of dollars and hours spent getting a sea mammal back on course when that money and time could be given to hungry unhoused humans.

 

But, imo, it's all ultimately about a balanced outlook on the interdependency of all that exists, not about doing some one-time crazy heroic thing, or acting as though putting chihuahuas in baby clothes is normal.

 

Even if/though we are the most important species to us, doing our best by this most important species would need to include deep examination of how our actions are helping or harming us, wouldn't it? Shouldn't it include not being blind to the repercussions of our hubris to the children of our children's children, whom we may never see, but who will see photos or watch moving pictures of us, and search our faces trying to discover how come we left their world an effective wasteland?

 

If we're the most important species, that must have something to do with the fact that no species but ours can have such profound positive and negative effects on all other species -- because we're intrinsically so amazingly creative, intelligent, communicative, dextrous and conceptual.

 

Nature has given our species much. And "From those to whom much is given, much is required."

 

Especially when it's in our best interest.

[spamandham]

But, imo, it's all ultimately about a balanced outlook on the interdependency of all that exists, not about doing some one-time crazy heroic thing,

 

Do people often do crazy one-time heroic things with that which belongs to them, or do they do it when someone else bears the cost?

 

I understand the concepts of long term vs. short term thinking, but I also don't see how impacts to species that don't benefit us should be any concern of ours beyond how such impacts might harm our own futures. While I don't believe nature is walking a fine balance that must be preserved, prudence dictates that we not act wrecklessly, as we are not capable of forseeing the effects of all our actions.

 

The end of oil will probably not be the end of humanity, though it might be the end of the modern age and will be followed by mass depopulation unless alternatives are found. There is value in delaying this.

 

From my observation, the greatest destruction to nature seems to flow from state policies such as mercantilism in its various forms, where the power of the state is used to shift costs to others for the benefit of the politically well connected. This includes the US with its bizarre farm policies, Brazil, and pretty much every other capitalist nation. In strongly authoritarian nations, the same thing happens, but we don't call it mercantilism.

[pitchu]

Do people often do crazy one-time heroic things with that which belongs to them, or do they do it when someone else bears the cost?

 

I guess I don't understand this question.

 

I understand the concepts of long term vs. short term thinking, but I also don't see how impacts to species that don't benefit us should be any concern of ours beyond how such impacts might harm our own futures.  While I don't believe nature is walking a fine balance that must be preserved, prudence dictates that we not act wrecklessly, as we are not capable of forseeing the effects of all our actions.

 

It would seem to me that in the two bolded statements, above, you've explained how impossible it is for us to know which species don't benefit us.

 

The end of oil will probably not be the end of humanity, though it might be the end of the modern age and will be followed by mass depopulation unless alternatives are found.  There is value in delaying this.

 

No question!

 

From my observation, the greatest destruction to nature seems to flow from state policies such as mercantilism in its various forms, where the power of the state is used to shift costs to others for the benefit of the politically well connected.  This includes the US with its bizarre farm policies, Brazil, and pretty much every other capitalist nation.  In strongly authoritarian nations, the same thing happens, but we don't call it mercantilism.

 

Bolded, above: The authors of misery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>