0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There are many scientists who work in areas that are needed such as medicines and energy efficiency.
You are correct though if we have a nuclear war or an ending war as I considerate it, there is little point. However if we all thought on them lines, we might as well fire/sack everyone from every job there is, their jobs also being pointless.
As example, what's the justification for spending billions on Higgs Boson research?
Perhaps instead of firing the scientists we should just fire their cultural authority?
I'm proposing that scientists are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion, because to do so is to put their careers in jeopardy.
For example I am not a scientist but have some revolutionary ideas that are hard to consider because they are so advanced and ahead of the times.
So I do not feel their jobs are in jeopardy they are still a part of the same team, our team.
It's people like you who are leading us to the end times!!! :-)
I agree, their jobs are not in jeopardy. But should they be? Should we just keep on blindly funding a knowledge explosion without knowing where it is taking us?
I'm proposing that scientists are uniquely unqualified to consider the inconvenient new reality being created by the knowledge explosion
Obviously, we should fire all the artists for the same reason: if we all die in a nuclear war, what's the point of art. And, of course, the same is true of medicine- pretty pointless if we are all dead. Teachers- not a valid career really is it?- after all, the kids they teach will die anyway
How do you test that assertion against several similar claims?:
What we can say is that the culture of science (and those who practice it), starting from the beginnings of Agriculture have tackled larger and larger projects, at higher and higher cost, which have had a larger and larger impact on the planet. To the point where humanity is now consuming resources far faster than they can be replenished.
In the long term, this is ultimately unsustainable unless we really cut back on our energy and raw materials budget, or discover an energy source like nuclear fusion.
I suggest that with a human population now over 7 billion, it is mostly continual advances in responsible use of science and technology that is holding off the human crash (the animal, plant, fish and insect crash is already underway).
It is irresponsible use of science and technology that could bring the human crash earlier - witness egocentric and narcissistic politicians launching nuclear rants at each other from opposite sides of the globe.
Should we fire the funders of science instead?
if a safe is going to fall on my head tomorrow then what I learn today has no value because I won't be here to put what has been learned to constructive use.
This is about like arguing that you shouldn't buy groceries because you might die in a car crash on the way home from the supermarket and therefore won't be able to use them.
scientists are only there because money wants them to be.
I dont see how this is a new theory either.
The thread may be better described going over the heads of some readers. Many readers here are probably a third my age. It's not reasonable for us to expect everyone at every level of experience to be able to fully follow every conversation. The anonymous nature of the Net tends to create the impression that everyone participating is about the same, a compelling illusion.