Is science and scientists to blame for where we are?

43 posts

Flag Post

I was thinking for discussion..

First a disclaimer to fend off some of our more angry forum friends: I support science and scientists.

Now I was thinking that the trouble we are in with global warming could be put on scientists backs. Why? They study the way things are, then invent things. Like the internal combustion engine – the reason we are having global warming.

I fully think we have started to go down a road where science has doomed us, yet only science can lift us out of it as well with technology that works with earth, and does not destroy it.

Think of all the modern things we can thank science for that is harming the planet. Now think of the things nature does that harms the planet. Not much, huh if anything!

I know some scientists would agree with me and some would be offended. Yet I can’t even pin religion on this as much as I would love to – it’s science that has gotten us into this horrible situation.

What do you guys think?

 
Flag Post

Global warming is a myth.

 
Flag Post

Science isn’t at fault. Greed and human irresponsibility are at fault.

 
Flag Post

That greed and irresponsibility would not have taken place if not for the inventions science made possible.

 
Flag Post

Without “science”, we are doomed to die with the sun.

 
Flag Post

That greed and irresponsibility would not have taken place if not for the inventions science made possible.

That’s stupid. Greed is part of human nature, always has been.

Your problem is this; ‘science’ is not a thing, it’s just a way of talking about a particular set of things. “Science” can’t be at fault for anything, as it is not a self-serving entity. Any inventions that are involved in these problems are just extensions of the will of greedy people.

Global warming is a myth.

No; global warming is an oversimplification. That’s why we don’t call it global warming any more; we call it ‘climate change’, which is a demonstrable fact.

It’s the people with the power and money who are the problem.

 
Flag Post

Religion is not at fault for anything. Science is not at fault for anything. It’s us humans that are at fault. Perhaps this explains why “religion versus science” is pretty useless. You need to look at those who are performing in the name of religion/science.

To make a point, pollution and mineral depletion at fast rates are certain issues that are already harming Earth more drastically than everyone wants to think. This is not going to stop, we’re eventually going to kill ourself. Factories with heavy pollution? They’re not going to stop working, it ruins their profit! Mineral depletion could be done much more efficiently, but as you might guess, it ruins their profit!

Greed indeed.

 
Flag Post

Now I was thinking that the trouble we are in with global warming could be put on scientists backs. Why? They study the way things are, then invent things. Like the internal combustion engine – the reason we are having global warming.

Scientists also invented steam engines and electric engines prior to the internal combustion engine. It is not their fault Ford took the shittiest design and built his empire on it.

Think of all the modern things we can thank science for that is harming the planet. Now think of the things nature does that harms the planet. Not much, huh if anything!

Nothing? You aren’t thinking hard enough then. Volcanoes, earthquakes, forest fire, asteroids; they are all extremely deadly, have greater effects in a shorter time, and are completely natural.

it’s science that has gotten us into this horrible situation.

Nonsense. Science creates. It is idiots who take science and turn it into weapons that put us in horrible situations. Scientists may have created methods of synthesizing gas, but it was the Nazis who used it to kill. Scientists may have discovered nuclear power, but it was the US government that weaponized it. Blaming everything on the creater is somewhat overdoing it.

That’s stupid. Greed is part of human nature, always has been.

That doesn’t make any sense. Is Marx to blame for what Stalin did, despite it never having been even close to his original aims? I know your main point in that paragraph is right though. Science is not a thing to be blamed, it is a method of thinking.

 
Flag Post

@ Vangaurde

All technologies are morally neutral until they are applied. Blaming science for global warming removes thew blame from the people who used that technology irresponsibly. By that logic you should blame the weapon of a murderer not the murderer himself which is ludicrous.

Think of all the positive implications science and technology has had on the world. I am sure you yourself live in relative comfort, without science that would not be possible.

 
Flag Post

Please people, stop telling everyone that we are harming the planet. We’re not. We’re barely scratching the planet. The only thing that we are doing is killing ourselves. The Earth can survive global warming and a nuclear holocaust. We can’t.

 
Flag Post

I think you mean engineers, not scientists. Scientists tell you “this is how you could build something”; engineers are the ones who go ahead and make it so.

 
Flag Post

We as a human race technologically advance.
Rather now than living in the stone age.

Its thanks to the people who think “what happens if THIS is done instead?” that we’re where we are in terms of science. I’d rather be in a future where we piss about over fossil fuels and climate change, than a past where we’d be hunting bears with spears.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by muhfish:

Please people, stop telling everyone that we are harming the planet. We’re not. We’re barely scratching the planet. The only thing that we are doing is killing ourselves. The Earth can survive global warming and a nuclear holocaust. We can’t.

Why thank you for that delightful and terribly misinformed post of yours. It’s good to know you have better insight than the bulk of the scientific body who claim that global warming is a real problem (although a terribly mislabeled and understood one).

 
Flag Post

Yeah, lets call it ‘climate change’ eh? The term ‘global warming’ is misleading.

It happens naturally too, but human activity is accellerating it noticeably.

 
Flag Post

I heard a kid on television when asked about global warming and she said ‘Earth is having a hissy fit cause it can’t reach the itch on it’s back to scratch’

I can’t tell if she was stupid, joking, or a genius.

 
Flag Post

Possibly all three.

I started a thread a while ago asking if people are responsible for the unforeseen consequences of their actions. My examples were Jesus, leading to such things as the Spanish inquisition, crusades etc etc (you all know the list) ; and Einstein, whose work led to the development of the atomic bomb. I see this as a related topic.

If scientists are doing their work believing that they are making the Earth a worse place (in whatever way you care to discuss) then they are at fault. They still might not necessarily be the actual causes of our current situations, but they are at fault nevertheless. Given that I wholeheartedly expect that at the worst they don’t consider the implications of their work (research for the sake of research, for example) or more likely that they are trying to make the world a slightly better place, I don’t think scientists-in-general should bear the blame for any of our problems.

 
Flag Post

Why thank you for that delightful and terribly misinformed post of yours. It’s good to know you have better insight than the bulk of the scientific body who claim that global warming is a real problem (although a terribly mislabeled and understood one).

I’m not saying global warming isn’t a problem. I have seen the data, you would have to be an idiot if you just said “oh, it’s just patterns!”

What i’m saying is that the planet will survive global warming; it’s the people who won’t

 
Flag Post

Fair enough, but I still must disagree with your final premise. It is possible the ‘planet’ (by which I assume we mean life) will survive, but then again…maybe not. It is a risky gamble when you work to destroy the systems that sustain all life on the planet.

 
Flag Post

The planet does not really “live”. I was indeed referring to all life on Earth, which I conveniently named “Earth”. It was wrong by definition, I do hope no heads have rolled over this mistake.

Unless we start massively digging up everything we find and shoot it into outer space, we cannot directly destroy Earth. Earth can even take huge comets rushing into it at full speed, it will only blast a hole. My point was indeed that we all are destroying life on Earth if we continue to pollute the planet.

 
Flag Post

Yes, I’m not really sure what you mean by ‘the planet will survive’… I mean, I don’t think there’s any chance of the earth being blown up here. You’re just deliberately misunderstanding people.

 
Flag Post

But blaming science is as much as blaming the human population itself. Humans are innately curious, and out of either evolution or creationism (your preference) we have come to question reality, and this is what caused science to evolve…partially.

Almost all things you have come to know today as technology were invented as a result of warfare, and then later adapted to be used by the general populace. War drives science, and thus blaming science is blaming war, meaning you are blaming our own nature of greed, curiosity, pride. etc…

The answer? There is no point in thinking whether science caused global warming or not. Of course, science will be the tool we have to defeat global warming.

 
Flag Post

I think the majority of scientists don’t even think about their actions. All they care about is their research and their desire to prove something.

OOPS I guess if that discovery leads to something dangerous.

This is what I feel the scientists at the Large Hadron Collider are thinking like. I still think it’s so fucking arrogant that they think they can predict with 100% accuracy that the tiny black holes they want to make won’t be dangerous even at a tiny 0.0000000000000000006 percent.

 
Flag Post

… The level of confidence you express in your ignorance astounds me. The LHC will not create dangerous black holes, because they are so small that they cannot pull even a single molecule towards themselves before collapsing.

All this moronic LHC apocalypse nonsence was started by an idiotic botanist who didn’t know what he was talking about and started a craze of misinformation and fear-mongering, and people are still unable or unwilling to cut through all the bullshit and realize that the things we could learn from the LHC far, far outweigh a risk that really doesn’t exist.

 
Flag Post

What then if the LHC creates a anti-black hole made up of antiparticles? And it blows up the planet instantly?

Can they say for sure that is impossible? Will they say an anti-black hole is impossible? How do they know? Have they figured out the entire universe and how it works yet?

They are poking into things they do not fully understand IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND.

How dangerous is that?

 
Flag Post

What then if the LHC creates a anti-black hole made up of antiparticles? And it blows up the planet instantly?

Well then this discussion wouldn’t matter because everyone would be dead.

The fact that there is a miniscule possibility of the world ending due to the LHC detracted from the fact that real advancements in that field could be made. It is typical of the press and general populus to focus on the negative, not positive implications of the LHC. The chances of a black hole destroying the world are absolutely tiny, and yes the scientists do know that for a fact. They didnt just create an LHC without knowing its exact capabilities.