The Trouble With Kittens

[spamandham]

Zach, your reference to fire is more insightful than perhaps you realize.

 

Humans have evolved dependence on technology for existence. It is part of us.

[RankStranger]

By the way how do we know that we are not an invasive species?

 

I know this wasn't directly addressed to me, but anyway...

 

We don't. I reckon it depends on how you define "invasive species", and who is doing the defining, but it would be easy enough to make the case that we intellegent apes ARE an invasive species. My question is: "so?"

 

 

The cat is outta the bag... pandora's box has been opened... etc. We humans are causing mass extinctions, overpopulating the world, and basically making a mess. We'll continue to do so, and eventually the earth will look nothing like what we see today. There's nothing you or anybody else can do to stop it... so why worry about it? It's inevitable. Why not jump on the bandwagon?

 

You mentioned exponential growth a while back. There's no doubt that we're undergoing exponential population growth right now, and science/technology is expanding exponentially. I see two possibilities here.

 

We could follow logistic exponential growth, in which case population growth will slow at some point. This isn't pure fantasy- this is a common equation for modeling population growth within a relatively closed ecosystem. Lots of critters follow this model- maybe we will. Now, it's hard to say whether the slowing of population growth would be accomplished by simply lowering birth rates like some countries are doing now, or if it'll be slowed by war/disease/hunger/assorted nastiness- the latter seems likely.

 

However, what if our technology advances enough that lots of folks leave the planet before it becomes uninhabitable? The sky isn't falling today or tomorrow, and if we see as much change over the next 50 years as we've seen over the last, it just might happen. If that's the case, our exponential growth could just be getting started- we could spread like cockroaches throughout the galaxy. It'll be great!

[RankStranger]

btw- I'm still on the lookout for Ishmael. I'll give it a read.

[Cerise]

You need to realize that a making a tool does not mean it has to be used, and if used, that it has to be used improperly.

 

Isn't the entire point of making a tool laden with the assumption that is will be used? Why would you make something useless? And who gets to say what the "proper" and "improper" use of a tool is? You? A commitee? Science?

 

Those who make tools without entertaining the thought of what they tools will be used for are either very deluded, or very ignorant. I hope you would argue that most scientists and tool-makers of the world are neither.

[Cerise]

We don't.  I reckon it depends on how you define "invasive species", and who is doing the defining, but it would be easy enough to make the case that we intellegent apes ARE an invasive species.  My question is: "so?"

The cat is outta the bag... pandora's box has been opened... etc.  We humans are causing mass extinctions, overpopulating the world, and basically making a mess.  We'll continue to do so, and eventually the earth will look nothing like what we see today.  There's nothing you or anybody else can do to stop it... so why worry about it?  It's inevitable.  Why not jump on the bandwagon?

 

Wow. The exact attitude that leads to nothing at all being done.

 

Hey, I have an idea, let's just erase all punishments for murderers. It's inevitable that people will murder now and for the rest of time, so why try to crub that kind of behavior, or put limits on it? There's nothing anybody can do to eradicate murder from the earth, it's human nature. So, kill your neighbor today!

 

Sorry for the snarkiness, but this is the type of attitude I've been battling against for years. And it gets tiring, mostly because it's so tempting to give in and say "what the hell! Get me more oil, give me more food, let me take up more space, 'cause the world will just go to pot anyway and I might as well contribute! Give me an excuse to ignore everything and be a lazy sod! It's the uni student's dream..."

 

As long as people think like this nothing at all will change. As long as we can sit on our fat arses and say "nothing we can do, it's human nature" we will do exactly that.

 

Who told you humans always lived this way? Who whispered this lie in your ear? What story are you re-enacting? And how can we stop listening to the lure of Mama Culture so intently?

[Zach]

Isn't the entire point of making a tool laden with the assumption that is will be used?  Why would you make something useless?  And who gets to say what the "proper" and "improper" use of a tool is?  You?  A commitee?  Science?

 

Those who make tools without entertaining the thought of what they tools will be used for are either very deluded, or very ignorant.  I hope you would argue that most scientists and tool-makers of the world are neither.

Let's keep going with the example I've been using: the Inclined Plane. One common tool that uses this principle is a knife. We can safely assume that the manufacturer of an ordinary kitchen knife has made it for the purpose of cutting things; most likely, vegetables and meat. But there are many different applications that a knife can be used for: opening ketchup bottles, separating pills, carving words into a cutting board, and even stabbing someone to death.

 

As much as we'd like to think a tool has a particular 'purpose', that does not limit that tool completely. A hammer can be used to drive nails, or to bash someone's skull in. A screwdriver can be used to turn screws, or it can stab someone in the eye.

 

Does that mean that we should treat a toolbox as if it were a deadly arsenal? Should we hold a tool manufacturer liable if someone uses a screwdriver to commit murder?

 

Technology spawned by Scientific research can be either helpful or harmful, and sometimes both.

[Cerise]

Is there a use to the Atom Bomb beyond destruction of life and property?

 

Or perhaps a gun can be used to do something besides wound flesh?

 

The knife can indeed pare an apple as well as poke out an eye....but what double purpose does a nuclear warhead serve, or an assault rifle?

[Cerise]

In any case, my perception was that the purpose of technology was to make life for humans better. And what I most desperately want to ask in this age of technology, where every third kid was a cell phone glued to their ear, are our lives better? Do we feel better about who we are and what we are doing with ourselves on this planet, are we getting along better, are we living better, do our children have hope for the future?

 

Are we better now, will all this stuff, with microchips and hot dogs and CPUs and suburbs and highways and televisions? Are our lives better?

[Fweethawt]

but what double purpose does a nuclear warhead serve, ........?

 

Here is another use for nuclear warheads.

The idea was umm, shot down though.

 

Project Orion

[chefranden]

No. The ultimate goal of Science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe. Consumption of "everything" is totally beyond its scope.

Sorry some how I missed this post.

 

I don't doubt that this is a primary goal of Science, but I have suspicions about it being the ultimate goal.

 

First let's pause for a word about Francis Bacon.

 

Another the progenitors of the scientific method was Francis Bacon, who formalized the process of inquiry by which a scientist develops a hypothesis, then gathers data in order to support or invalidate it.  Bacon's intent was clear: "my only earthly wish is... to stretch the deplorablely narrow limits of man's dominion over the universe to their promise bounds."  The language of dominance saturate his writings.  He talks of "putting [nature] on the rack and extracting her secrets," and of "storming our strongholds and castles."  At no time to Bacon hide his agenda: "I am come in very truth leading you to Nature with all her children to bind her to your service and to make our your slave... the mechanical inventions of recent years are not merely exert a gentle guidance over Nature's courses, they have the power to conquer and subdue her, to shake her to her foundations."

Since humans need motivation to do stuff, the question is why? Why does Science have the goal of understanding the mechanisms of the Universe? Just for the fun of it perhaps? I kind of doubt it. But if so then the Ultimate goal would be fun. That wouldn't be so bad. Lets consider a couple of hypotheses concerning motivation.

 

1. Science is done simply for the pleasure of knowing.

 

2. Science is done to dominate the Universe.

 

Which of the above two poorly worded hypotheses would better predict the production of cluster bombs?

 

Maybe I would be less skeptical if you could tell me the evidence that shows that the Ultimate goal of Science is not to have the power to conquer and subdue the universe in order to expand the deplorablely narrow limits of man's dominion as is evidenced by cluster bombs and factories built to turn forests into board feet of lumber, but rather to have fun.

 

I know this makes me a pain in the ass, but I'm not willing to to accept that Science is simply about knowlege with out some evidence, because my experience tells me other wise.

 

I know you would expect me to take issue with these religious descriptions, but I will anyway. Science, especially now, is too fast-moving to become dogmatic. Information flows too quickly, and the boon of governmental funding allows us to replicate results shown by anyone who sumbits to peer review. Recall the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, which crashed down around the discovery and inevitable confirmation of retrovirii? Or prion proteins? The use of religious terminology belie ignorance of actual Science.

I suppose this may be true in Molecular Biology, but it is certainly not the case in Cosmology where I do most of my science reading. In cosmology there is much dogma to which young scientists must comform or risk not getting jobs or their work even reviewed.

 

Isn't one of the criteria of adequacy that other things being equal the best hypothesis is the on that is the most conservative, that, the one that fits best with established beliefs? Maybe this doesn't apply in Biology, I don't know. But if it does it means that the Bishops oops Peer Reviewers have power to direct Science in directions they want it to go for what ever subjective human reasons they want to apply -- personal ambition, conservation of grant money, political leanings, set thinking, or what have you. I'm not condeming them for this. They cannot help being human, but they could help pretending that being human is irrealivant to the process.

 

This criteria seems to me to be the logical falicy of appeal to authority. And from my reading in cosmology, it seems to be the dominate criteria. (Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation by Joao Magueijo for example)

 

Just because Science can change its dogma faster than Christianity can, and do so with less bloodshed is not evidence that it is not religion like in its motivations.

 

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

1) It is, unless something better is shown.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

2) Science does not always produce technology. Often, it is the other way around.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

3) Again, you are criticizing technology, not Science.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

4) The Universe that Science studies is already objective. Conclusions can be subjective, but data is not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) Again, you are criticizing technology, not Science.

 

1. What about being a successful species for most of a million years before science? I'm not sure what the method was then but it seemed to work well, and didn't result in the wholesale destruction of habitat or the production of cluster bombs.

 

2. I'm not getting the relavance of this answer. Whether Science is conected to technology (itself a science by the construction of the word*) before or after the fact does not mean that Science and Technology aren't hand in glove.

 

I'm going to suppose that you didn't deal with the cultural and environmental damage part of the question, because Science is too holy to be responsible for that?

 

3. Not if Science and Technology are cell mates, I'm not. Are you suggesting that for example that Scientifically found knowledge of Chemistry was not used to produce bigger and more efficient at killing, bombs? Surely you are not saying the Chemistry is never funded with such a purpose in mind.

 

Perhaps I'm not getting the disconnect. Just because Science and Technology come to every dance arm in arm does not mean they are in cohoots?

 

4. I appologize for not being very clear. I'll try again: Science seeks to make or convince a subjective being to relate to the world as if the subjective being were objective in its perception. Since the Subjective being evolved successfuly to relate to its envioronment (which includes its ability to use reason) subjectively isn't it illogical to attempt this exercise of pretending to be objective? That is not to say that there is nothing on the other side of the bag of skin that contains the subjective being to relate to. It is only to say that the subjective being relates to other primarily subjectively and that it is foolish to ignore that in deciding what to do.

 

5. I can only answer this with repetition so I won't do so.

 

*Technology:

1. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.

2. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.

[chefranden]

We don't.  I reckon it depends on how you define "invasive species", and who is doing the defining, but it would be easy enough to make the case that we intellegent apes ARE an invasive species.  My question is: "so?"

The cat is outta the bag... pandora's box has been opened... etc.  We humans are causing mass extinctions, overpopulating the world, and basically making a mess.  We'll continue to do so, and eventually the earth will look nothing like what we see today.  There's nothing you or anybody else can do to stop it... so why worry about it?  It's inevitable.  Why not jump on the bandwagon?

 

You are probably right. But I'm not worried about it in the sense of oh woe is me. I'm trying to make sense of it. Perhaps having jumped on a political and a religious band wagon with poor results I must examine this band wagon very closely. Perhaps it makes rolling down hill towards the precipice with no brakes more fun. But then there is that tiny bit of me that remembers that my hero Daniel Quinn says that it is just possible that we could wake up from mother culture in time jump off the wagon before she goes over. He thinks that other civilizations like the Maya did so in the past.

 

You mentioned exponential growth a while back.  There's no doubt that we're undergoing exponential population growth right now, and science/technology is expanding exponentially.  I see two possibilities here. 

 

We could follow logistic exponential growth, in which case population growth will slow at some point.  This isn't pure fantasy- this is a common equation for modeling population growth within a relatively closed ecosystem.  Lots of critters follow this model- maybe we will.  Now, it's hard to say whether the slowing of population growth would be accomplished by simply lowering birth rates like some countries are doing now, or if it'll be slowed by war/disease/hunger/assorted nastiness- the latter seems likely.

Yes this is a possibility. If we are aware enough we may be able to pull off what is known as a "soft landing". It doesn't appear yet that we are willing to be aware. But if we have already taken our habitat to the brink of destruction, maybe we no longer have the chance.

 

However, what if our technology advances enough that lots of folks leave the planet before it becomes uninhabitable?  The sky isn't falling today or tomorrow, and if we see as much change over the next 50 years as we've seen over the last, it just might happen.  If that's the case, our exponential growth could just be getting started- we could spread like cockroaches throughout the galaxy.  It'll be great!

 

Maybe, but you might wonder why we are spending billions on war instead of building colony spaceships and hyperdrives. If it were possible perhaps we would have time to learn to be leavers again.

 

Sorry S&H. I'm too tired to get to you tonight.

[pitchu]

Zach, I think most of what I've addressed in my exchanges with you has involved your statement that knowledge is amoral.

 

I still don't understand how you think it is, once it's inside a decidedly non-amoral human mind.

 

Beyond wanting to re-state that point, and how I consider it leads to a most arbitrary and Science-serving dichotomy between Science and technology, I guess I want to say that I don't believe I've made any sweeping statements about Science.

 

I feel, sometimes, pretty sweepingly about Science, but I'd ask you to quote back to me any such thing I've said in this discussion.

 

"Science" rewarded me with sustaining the life of one of my daughters. She got diabetes at the age of seven, and is now forty-three. She wouldn't be forty-three if it weren't for Banting and Best.

 

I really like Banting and Best. I really like their story. I often think of them slaving away in that over-heated attic laboratory all summer, wading in hipboots through discarded intestines at the local slaughterhouse, keeping very personal and caring logs about the dogs on which they were experimenting (even writing a eulogy of sorts to their favorite brave and unaccountably loving one). They begged to get any kind of financing at all, since they didn't have the boon of governmental funding. But Banting, of course, was primarily just a veterinarian with a loopy notion about the Islets of Langerhans, and who wants to give money to someone like that?

 

Best worked alongside Banting because he was primarily interested in saving the life of his good friend, who, ultimately, volunteered to be the first human subject for injected insulin. The friend, like, rapidly, untold hundreds of thousands of near-skeletons across the globe rose to life from the work of these two unlikely moral enthusiasts for whom the scientific method was mainly about thieving what they needed and getting really bloody and messy.

 

There's a downside to their work, of course, because we might not be facing the problem of over-population which we now face if diabetics were still simply doomed to early death.

 

But I admit to having a personal stake which clouds my judgment about what they did. That's a human for ya.

 

They saved my daughter's life. I'm glad it was them.

[Zach]

Is there a use to the Atom Bomb beyond destruction of life and property?

 

Or perhaps a gun can be used to do something besides wound flesh?

 

The knife can indeed pare an apple as well as poke out an eye....but what double purpose does a nuclear warhead serve, or an assault rifle?

Are you saying that every possible use of a gun, in every possible situation, is immoral?

[Cerise]

No, I'm saying that a gun is a tool used for killing or hurting living things. Period.

 

You could quite concievably find a situation in which hurting someone might be moral, I'm sure. But a gun itself has no dual purpose. It isn't "corrupted" in its use to hurt and kill things. That is what it is made for, and that's what it does.

 

I notice even you couldn't find the bright side to the Atom Bomb, Zach.

[Zach]

Chefranden-

 

First of all, no scientist I've ever talked to has ever voiced the desire to "dominate the Universe", nor have I ever read anything to indicate that to be the case in modern Science. Secondly, weapons technology are developed to dominate other humans, not the Universe. Thirdly, the same Scientific principle can be used to build a cluster bomb, and also to build railroad tunnels.

 

Your beef is with specific technologies utilized in a specific way, and with that I have no problem.

 

You're asking me to prove the negative of a complex question. Does Science intend to conquer and subdue the Universe? As I've said, I've never met a scientist egotistical enough to claim it. Does Science seek to expand the limits of mankind's understanding? Absolutely. Using words like "dominion", you are tapping into the religious paradigm of mankind's purpose, which I've already explained is not congruent with Scientific inquiry.

 

Careful. Dogma refers to a statement of absolute belief by faith. Every discipline of Science forms theories based on evidence. Young scientists must conform their theories to the established evidence, the same as everyone else.

 

It's really insulting for you to use religious terms to refer to individuals in the Scientific process. Of course peer reviewers can be biased about how the evidence is to be interpreted, but that's why they typically form in groups. And even when a large number agree on an interpretation, (re: Molecular Biology), new evidence to the contrary always wins out.

 

Seems to be, perhaps. But as I've explained, evidence is the ultimate authority, and you should know from studying cosmology that there are all kinds of new interpretations and theories from all sides of the field.

 

1) It also resulted in high morbidity and mortality. Are you arguing for the benefit of going back to a caveman lifestyle?

 

2) Yes, but it depends which hand is in which glove. Science and Technology can work together, but they can also work separately, as they have throughout history.

 

3) Science is NOT "holy." Individuals who apply scientific principles to damage cultures and the environment are responsible for whatever consequences arise, but to hold that particular principle responsible is ludicrous.

 

4) I'm sure it has been, and those Scientists who developed technologies for the sole purpose of killing are responsible for whatever moral consequences exist. But Chemistry can also be used to create pharmaceuticals that save peoples' lives.

 

Humans are not completely subjective creatures. We don't have to "pretend" to be objective- we are every time we consider another person's point of view.

 

Your definition of technology makes my point for me. The reference to the "scientific method" which you have emboldened speaks of it as a tool, along with a particular material, to acheive a commercial or industrial objective. That is, applying scientific principles with a specific goal in mind. That's exactly what I've been saying. By way of contrast, here's the definition of Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

See the difference?

[Zach]

No, I'm saying that a gun is a tool used for killing or hurting living things.  Period.

 

You could quite concievably find a situation in which hurting someone might be moral, I'm sure.  But a gun itself has no dual purpose.  It isn't "corrupted" in its use to hurt and kill things.  That is what it is made for, and that's what it does.

 

I notice even you couldn't find the bright side to the Atom Bomb, Zach.

A gun can also be used to shoot inanimate targets. There are people that own guns, use them all the time, and have never killed or hurt a living thing. Does that mean that they are using them improperly?

 

The Science of Atomic Fission that allowed for the construction of the Atomic Bomb also powers millions of homes around the world as we speak. Is that bright enough for you?

[Zach]

Pitchu-

 

I've tried very hard to make the distinction between knowledge and applied knowledge. I don't know how else to explain it.

 

Is the principle of the Inclined Plane moral, or immoral?

 

Here's one such sweeping statement:

I think that in many ways many scientists have given themselves a free pass on accepting responsibility for what, how and why they choose to explore what they explore. They've done this by perpetuating the notion that Science is amoral and pure, ergo, the humans who unearth and work with scientific information are, themselves, spotless in their endeavors, unpersuaded by pressure, recognition, or other punishment or reward, or by any other human propensity. Also, they've assigned blame for the immoral use of their discoveries to those in the field of Technology who implement those discoveries in various ways.

 

As I've said before, scientists are moral agents. Of course they are. But seeking knowledge about, say, diabetes is neither moral or immoral. It's simply asking the question, "how does this work?" It's the next step, that of applying that knowledge in a specific way, that enters the bounds of ethics. Harvesting pig pancreas is nothing more than a messy, disgusting job. But harvesting pig pancreas to purify insulin to lower morbidity and mortality for diabetics is a noble enterprise.

 

Likewise, the scientists who began the first nuclear pile at the University of Chicago were simply interested in expanding the knowledge of Nuclear Physics. But the scientists (some of the same) who participated in the Manhattan Project were interesting in making an efficient killing machine. Granted, most of them probably felt it to be a good cause, but still there was a moral choice to be made.

[Panther]

"Science" rewarded me with sustaining the life of one of my daughters. She got diabetes at the age of seven, and is now forty-three. 

 

 

'Scuse me for interrupting....but I'm glad to hear this Pitchu!

[Cerise]

A gun can also be used to shoot inanimate targets. There are people that own guns, use them all the time, and have never killed or hurt a living thing. Does that mean that they are using them improperly?

 

The Science of Atomic Fission that allowed for the construction of the Atomic Bomb also powers millions of homes around the world as we speak. Is that bright enough for you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Shooting inanimate targets is the purpose of the gun? That's why it was created? Why? What is the use in shooting inanimate targets? Does it feed your family? Is it building your house? I feel you are grasping at straws here Zach. Inanimate targets only serve to let people know their aim will be good if they ever choose to put a bullet through an animate target.

 

And no, bringing electricity to people who for many eons have had a perfectly good sun to use for light sources does not impress me. Nor does it have much to do with the "use" of the Atomic Bomb that I was talking about. Why didn't people stop at Atomic Fission for powering homes? If that was the really useful part of the science, why did it not stop there? Why did it keep going and create a monster?

[Cerise]

I wish to try a little experiment. In red are the words I substitute.

 

First of all, no Christian I've ever talked to has ever voiced the desire to "dominate the Universe", nor have I ever read anything to indicate that to be the case in modern Christianity. Secondly, wrongful docterines are developed to dominate other humans, not the Universe. Thirdly, the same Christian principle can be used to build a community, and also to build a cult.

 

Your beef is with specific docterines utilized in a specific way, and with that I have no problem.

 

You're asking me to prove the negative of a complex question. Does Christianity intend to conquer and subdue the Universe? As I've said, I've never met a Christian egotistical enough to claim it. Does Christianity seek to expand the limits of mankind's understanding? Absolutely. Using words like "dominion", you are tapping into the materialistic paradigm of mankind's purpose, which I've already explained is not congruent with spiritual inquiry.

 

.....

 

Individuals who apply religious principles to damage cultures and the environment are responsible for whatever consequences arise, but to hold that particular religion responsible is ludicrous.

 

4) I'm sure it has been, and those Christians who developed docterines for the sole purpose of killing are responsible for whatever moral consequences exist. But Christianity can also be used to create peace and harmony

 

 

Shall we know science by its fruits?

[Zach]

Shooting inanimate targets is the purpose of the gun?  That's why it was created?  Why?  What is the use in shooting inanimate targets?  Does it feed your family?  Is it building your house?  I feel you are grasping at straws here Zach.  Inanimate targets only serve to let people know their aim will be good if they ever choose to put a bullet through an animate target. 

 

And no, bringing electricity to people who for many eons have had a perfectly good sun to use for light sources does not impress me.  Nor does it have much to do with the "use" of the Atomic Bomb that I was talking about.  Why didn't people stop at Atomic Fission for powering homes?  If that was the really useful part of the science, why did it not stop there?  Why did it keep going and create a monster?

Believe it or not, but there are individuals who pursue marksmanship simply for the sake of marksmanship. But that's not my point- my point is that you can use Science to create moral technologies and immoral technologies. Just because one particular technology can be used for immoral purposes, that is not an indictment of Science.

[Zach]

I'm not impressed.

 

First of all, no Atheist I've ever talked to has ever voiced the desire to "dominate the Universe", nor have I ever read anything to indicate that to be the case in modern Atheism. Secondly, wrongful doctrines are developed to dominate other humans, not the Universe. Thirdly, the same Atheistic principle can be used to build a community, and also to destroy that community.

 

Your beef is with specific doctrines utilized in a specific way, and with that I have no problem.

 

You're asking me to prove the negative of a complex question. Does Atheism intend to conquer and subdue the Universe? As I've said, I've never met a Atheist egotistical enough to claim it. Does Atheism seek to expand the limits of mankind's understanding? Absolutely. Using words like "dominion", you are tapping into the spiritual paradigm of mankind's purpose, which I've already explained is not congruent with materialistic inquiry.

 

.....

 

Individuals who apply Atheistic principles to damage cultures and the environment are responsible for whatever consequences arise, but to hold Atheism responsible is ludicrous.

 

4) I'm sure it has been, and those Atheists who developed doctrines for the sole purpose of killing are responsible for whatever moral consequences exist. But Atheism can also be used to create peace and harmony

[chefranden]

So population is growing.  It won't reach the point that population exceeds the ability of earth to sustain humans, because we will have wars over scarce resources and kill off huge numbers of people long before that happens.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the wars happens, the cost of having children will exceed the perceived benefit.  So, while population growth may be slightly above replacement levels in Europe, we are already seeing what happens when the cost of children is perceived to be higher than the gain.  People just stop having kids.

That's right, won't it be fun?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is based on the assumption that the laws of nature do not apply to humans. Any species will expand to the extent its food source alows. The result of the "green revolution" was not less hungry people, but more people. Local anomolies such as in the United Kingdom (which has not reversed expansion) aside, the expansion is still exponential. It would be possible to reverse the expansion if you could get most people to go along with it and do something like using a lotto to determine which people get to breed and the rest to be sterilized. I doubt there is much probability of that happening.

Doomsdayers have been warning of overpopulation for hundreds of years, and it never happens, because unlike dear, we will start killing eachother long before we reach a cliff.

True we do tend to kill each other like rats overpopulating a cage, but I don't think even WWII slowed the expansion much. It certainly didn't reverse the expansion. In addition it resulted in a rebound of which I am an example.

 

...true, not in the current paradigm.  All you are doing is showing that something has to give.  It does, eventually, and perhaps the process has already started.

Yes I am showing that. I was under the impression that you felt that the once the level of developement of third world nations reached that of western nations that population would decline -- from this: S&H, "I'm not convinced of that. Fertility rates are below replacement rates in almost every developed nation, and with China and India entering that fold, Africa will be that last place where population is not in decline." By the way, though some nations have fertility rates near 0 Japan .05% none that I've looked at are negative.

 

Then the whole world is not going to achieve US style opulence.

Perhaps true, but is it your contention that humans require natural habitat?

Certainly, it is only the use of oil that is disguising that. This article makes some discussion about it.

 

25 years ago we were worried about global cooling. 

 

Historical CO2 levels are still well below those this planet has seen.  I don't know if the CO2 we're pumping into the air is staying there or not, and if so, if it is resulting in global warming.  I just don't see that there's any way to answer those questions definitively.  But, this link shows two things.  First, CO2 levels are all over the map historically. 

 

So even if it's true that our current production is raising these levels, it isn't true that there is a delicate balance holding the globe from destroying all life (or even just large land based life), as evidenced by the huge range of CO2 levels the earth has seen and life still thrived.

 

The second thing it shows is that there is no significant correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature (at least over long time periods).  On shorter time frames, we observe that between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures actually declined in the midst of massive increases in man made CO2 production. 

 

The current global warming trend started before the industrial revolution.

 

I'm having a hard time buying the global warming hysteria.  It has all the earmarks of quack science being used to promote political agendas. 

 

On the other hand I think that it has all the earmarks of being surpressed through obviscation to promote the political agendas of those in power -- the sellers of fossil fuels. In this thread I will stipulate that you are right, as this seems to be getting us away from the orginal argument. We can perhaps discuss global warming in another thread.

 

This one I share your fear.  Unfortunately, the nuclear pandoras box has already been opened.  There is no way to put the lid back on that box.  Our only hope is to eliminate all incentive to use such weapons, which means getting rid of those who would use them - states.  Without states, funding for nuclear technology would cease, and the nuclear arts might be forgotten.  The fundamental knowledge would still exist, but the how-to engineering experience would disappear quickly. 

The power science releases works both directions.  Bush has control of it because Americans believe in the system.

Science and the State go hand in glove. Religion used to suport the centralization of power in the west, now it is science that does so, and it does a much more effective job of it as well.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say I agreed with you on all these points.  What can be done about it?

 

Nothing really unless a large segment of all people in Taker Cultures, which is just about every one alive now, can wake up to Mother Culture, which includes belief in the system.

[pitchu]

First of all,

 

PANTHER,

 

Thanks a lot. Sometimes I forget, after all these years, that had my daughter been born four decades earlier she wouldn't have lived.

 

Zach:

I've tried very hard to make the distinction between knowledge and applied knowledge. I don't know how else to explain it.

 

I find the same frustration in getting my point across. I'll try one last time. How's this? "Any piece of information one knows is automatically applied."

 

It may not be applied in the sense that it (ever) enters the realm of a concrete invention, pill, etc., but it's applied in the sense that it's inevitably integrated into the rest of what one knows, thinks, and judges. So, to this extent, whatever one does or doesn't do with any piece of knowledge involves a choice. Choice is bound up with morality. Therefore, there is no "amoral knowledge."

 

Is the principle of the Inclined Plane moral, or immoral?

 

Like any "principle" floating in the ethers waiting to be known, it's amoral. The instant it's known, the knower has a moral responsibility concerning the principle.

 

As I've said before, scientists are moral agents.

 

Hm. Somehow I missed that part.

 

***************

 

Here's one such sweeping statement:

 

Pitchu Quote: I think that in many ways many scientists have given themselves a free pass on accepting responsibility for what, how and why they choose to explore what they explore. They've done this by perpetuating the notion that Science is amoral and pure, ergo, the humans who unearth and work with scientific information are, themselves, spotless in their endeavors, unpersuaded by pressure, recognition, or other punishment or reward, or by any other human propensity. Also, they've assigned blame for the immoral use of their discoveries to those in the field of Technology who implement those discoveries in various ways.

 

Zach, I've always thought of "sweeping statements" as being exclusive of qualifiers -- qualifiers which I've bolded, above.

 

Likewise, the scientists who began the first nuclear pile at the University of Chicago were simply interested in expanding the knowledge of Nuclear Physics. But the scientists (some of the same) who participated in the Manhattan Project were interesting in making an efficient killing machine. Granted, most of them probably felt it to be a good cause, but still there was a moral choice to be made.

 

And various of them made various moral choices. Appropos this example, my husband's father, who died a few months ago, worked with Oppenheimer on building the bomb. He was in charge of robotics for the handling of sensitive materials in bomb construction. He thought the endeavor moral until he dealt with the realization that the U.S. couldn't have the bomb ready in time to stop Hitler, which was the issue on which his sense of morality hinged.

 

He left the project and later turned his skills in robotics elsewhere. He invented, designed and manufactured crash test dummies.

 

Our individual moralities take us on strange journeys, don't they?

[chefranden]

Chefranden-

 

First of all, no scientist I've ever talked to has ever voiced the desire to "dominate the Universe", nor have I ever read anything to indicate that to be the case in modern Science.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, weapons technology are developed to dominate other humans, not the Universe. Thirdly, the same Scientific principle can be used to build a cluster bomb, and also to build railroad tunnels.

I would be surprized if you did. Scientists are as blind to their culture as anyone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where are the Passenger Pigeon, the Dusky Seaside Sparrow, the Great Auk, or the Yunnan Box Turtle? Isn't the dam a weapon of domination over the Salmon in the Pacific Northwest? What about the Chainsaw and Bulldozer as weapons of domination over the old Growth Forests of North America, or the Rainforest in Brazil? Why wouldn't you consider toxic waste in the Chesapeake Bay to be a WMD? Are these things not weapons simply because they are not used against humans, even though humans suffer collateral damage from them?

 

Your beef is with specific technologies utilized in a specific way, and with that I have no problem.

I think that my beef is with Science, which is at best quilty of aiding and abetting technology, if it is not the driving force.

 

The technologies that I have mentioned heretofore are merely raw data that support the contention that Science is about domination rather than coexistence for example. I'm sure that on the whole that scientists are very nice people. I'm sure that on the whole that loggers, dam builders, wheat farmers, cod fishers, oil drillers, meat plant foreman, parking lot pavers, restaurant workers and the like are all very nice people. Nevertheless their work is about dominion. My beef with Science is that it is about holding sacred what humans want over what jelly fish want to ultimate detriment of humans. Neither you nor any other scientist (or non-scientist) need be aware of this for the result of dominion to follow the practice of science. Dominion is built into the system.

 

You're asking me to prove the negative of a complex question. Does Science intend to conquer and subdue the Universe? As I've said, I've never met a scientist egotistical enough to claim it. Does Science seek to expand the limits of mankind's understanding? Absolutely. Using words like "dominion", you are tapping into the religious paradigm of mankind's purpose, which I've already explained is not congruent with Scientific inquiry.

I think that I'm using "Science intends" like one might use the government intends, or General Motors intends. Of course there is no conscious intension behind Science as if it were a single sentient being. I don't deny that I'm using religious metaphors. I'm doing so intentionally as in I'm conscious of using them.

 

Careful. Dogma refers to a statement of absolute belief by faith. Every discipline of Science forms theories based on evidence. Young scientists must conform their theories to the established evidence, the same as everyone else.

As a preacher I was taught that dogma refers to teachings. The dictionary says:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

Whether or not Science calls its Dogmas Theories is besides the point. That fact is that Theories hold the same space as Dogma and are protected the same way* as Dogma, at least in Cosmology where I do my reading. It doesn't matter if they are true in the sense they are the best predictors of phenomena or not, and woe betide the scientist of little standing or the layman if he or she should think to say nay.

 

It's really insulting for you to use religious terms to refer to individuals in the Scientific process. Of course peer reviewers can be biased about how the evidence is to be interpreted, but that's why they typically form in groups. And even when a large number agree on an interpretation, (re: Molecular Biology), new evidence to the contrary always wins out.

That is not what I've read in Cosmology. Pretty much you have to wait 'til the old school dies, because they are not going to accept theories that will put them and their work on the scrap heap of Science, except when they find away to give themselves credit for the new work. Bishops typically work in groups too. Those bishops that work out side the group like John Shelby Spong are called heretics. In Science those that work out side of the group like Tom Van Flandern or Rupert Sheldrake are called crackpots. Crackpots. Heretics. It is 6 of one and half dozen of the other as near as I can tell. But then I'm not a scientist so I shouldn't challange my betters, except that this sounds to much like leave God to the priests to me. The group argument doesn't hold much water by evidence of experience. On the other hand perhaps scientists have found the remedy for group think and haven't let us in on it yet.

 

I'm sorry that you find it insulting, but then we all have some sacred cows don't we? I'm sure I must have a couple left in the barn myself, though I will sell them when I find them. One of my pet Dogmas is that if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and sounds like a duck then I can go ahead and call it a duck.

 

Seems to be, perhaps. But as I've explained, evidence is the ultimate authority, and you should know from studying cosmology that there are all kinds of new interpretations and theories from all sides of the field.

Yes there are all kinds of new stuff, much of which never gets a hearing based, at least in part, on how threating it is to old established stuff. Question: How do peer reviewers make their assesments? Do they actually do experiments to falsify the new claims? Or do they just decide based on well it comforms to the criteria of conservation? I've read that at least some don't get read at all because of who they are, that is scientists that have already pissed off the establishment like Halton Arp who is no longer allowed telescope time in the the US because he thinks Hubble's red shift = distance is bunk.

 

1) It also resulted in high morbidity and mortality. Are you arguing for the benefit of going back to a caveman lifestyle?

If high morbidity and mortality is an argument against a culture then certainly ours is no good as well. However, I'm not arguing for going back to caveman lifestyle, since it is no longer possible. The Maya could fade back into the forest because it was still there. We have managed to destroy that possibility. I was merely asking the quesion why was homo sapiens a sucessful species without science, and why didn't homo sapiens destroy its own and other species habitat?

 

2) Yes, but it depends which hand is in which glove. Science and Technology can work together, but they can also work separately, as they have throughout history. Ok I conceed here technecally cave men had technology. And totolitarian agriculture began before science as well.

 

3) Science is NOT "holy." Individuals who apply scientific principles to damage cultures and the environment are responsible for whatever consequences arise, but to hold that particular principle responsible is ludicrous.

That is what I've been saying so I'm glad you agree.

 

But I see you misunderstand. As Pitchu has alread said, a principle is nothing out side of a moral agent. Perhaps this is what Science doesn't understand. When I say Science is responsible I'm talking about Science as a collective endevor of humans to subdue their environment to their will. There is no Science that is "objectively" separate from human operation. Even if there were it wouldn't make any difference to humans. Humans must operate subjectively, because that is the way they are constituted. There is no way that a scientist that has discovered some new power over nature or from nature if you will is not acting morally by handing it over, which s/he will because that is human nature -- what good is a secret that no one else knows? The scientist will want street cred if nothing else.

 

Lets say that fission is a process without any moral value as it functions in the universe. It really isn't a principle until you the scientist are able to describe the process in a way to make it available to human understanding which also makes it available for human manipulation or at least attempted manipulation. How will that be used? At least in our taker culture it will be used for dominion if it is possible to do so. Evidence abounds for that.

 

Oops brain fart in progress. Now that I think about it though, I'm going to revise my position that Science is the source, because Taker Culture began several thousand years before Science came along. I guess I'll have to at least downgrade Science to aider and abetter in the saga of Taker dominion. I'll have to cease picking on you for a day while I think on this because you may be right on the Science/technology relationship.

 

*For example the convoluted fairydust such as "dark matter" added to the universe in order to help preserve the "Big Bang" theory.