Author Topic: Gloom and doom?  (Read 5304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Androgeos Exeunt

  • Captain Oblivious
  • 212
  • Prevents attraction.
    • Wordpress.com Blog
While science might be responsible for the invention of these things it's very rare that the same person who invented something is also responsible for its deployment.

True, that. It wasn't Richard Trevethick who deployed the steam engine. That went to George Stephenson. Trevethick made the first steam locomotive, but Stephenson made it into a form of transport.
My blog

Quote: Tuesday, 3 October 2023 0133 UTC +8, #general
MP-Ryan
Oh you still believe in fairy tales like Santa, the Easter Bunny, and free market competition principles?

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Quote
As for the rest, I feel a distinction needs to be made between science and its application. Saying that you shouldn't research something because it might be used for evil is like saying you shouldn't own kitchen knives because they might be used for stabbing someone.

But just to look at science without looking at the fact the other people get their hands on it's results is equally as pointless. That's exactly what I mean by science distancing itself from the outcome of what it does.

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Quote
But just to look at science without looking at the fact the other people get their hands on it's results is equally as pointless. That's exactly what I mean by science distancing itself from the outcome of what it does.

Seconded. Scientists have social responsibility. It is not that they could stop someone misusing the results, but they can at least keep some noise of that to increase general awareness. Unfortunately according to my observations, the credibility of those scientists that go public takes a dive in the eyes of the scientific community.

Mika
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 02:06:03 pm by Mika »
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline neo_hermes

  • MmmmmmNode!
  • 28
  • What the hell are you lookin at?
i like gloom and doom...
Hell has no fury like an0n...
killing threads is...well, what i do best.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
But just to look at science without looking at the fact the other people get their hands on it's results is equally as pointless. That's exactly what I mean by science distancing itself from the outcome of what it does.

Problem is that if you start saying that "This can be misused therefore I shouldn't research it" you end up with very little that can be researched. There isn't much that can't be abused.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
True, there is always a use for Science in society, don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch supporter of Science, even a supporter of taking a few calculated 'risks', such as starting the Hadron collider etc, but to make the focus of society to be solely based on something that doesn't consider the ramifications of its actions is just as dangerous as making it on something that is overly paranoid about some big beard in the sky taking notes, in my opinion ;)

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
have you considered the possibility that you have made science into a stawman?
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
but to make the focus of society to be solely based on something that doesn't consider the ramifications of its actions is just as dangerous as making it on something that is overly paranoid about some big beard in the sky taking notes, in my opinion ;)

Agreed. But who is doing that?

I think you'll find that no one is deriving ethics from science or suggesting that it should be the focus of society in the first place.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Scorpius

  • Artíste
  • 26
Im glad that you guys are taking a rational approach to this argument instead of "Corporations will rape us to death and planet X will swoop out of the oort cloud and cover this planet in volcanic ash" crap that Ive read elsewhere.

My friend and I have been having this discussion for a few months now and we have different ideas about the future.  He believes that society will move towards ultimate sustainability where people grow food via permaculture and we live in small isolated communities because the mere existence of a city is destructive to our planet.  He seems to think that how most people lived during the middle ages was the future.  I see this as him saying that all but about 5.5 billion people will have to die before this idea becomes feasible.

Finally, I believe that people love their technology and travel too much to give it up and will come up with more and more creative ways of maintaining their lifestyle.  Even if society were to totally collapse, it wouldn't be long before we re-employ agriculture and our population will rebound in just the same way.  It seems cyclical and agriculture is a genie that has been let out of the bottle 10,000 years ago.  I feel that we are on the precipice of a major shift in economic and social reform and it will probably be violent and it will probably be destructive but in the end, I feel that we will be better in the long run.
Illustrator, inker, editor, letter of FREESPACE MARINES. A comic book based in the Freespace Universe
coming in late march.
My Galleries:
 www.3dap.com/hlp/art/scorpius
 http://www.3dactionplanet.com/redfaction/dp/d/art.shtml

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
but to make the focus of society to be solely based on something that doesn't consider the ramifications of its actions is just as dangerous as making it on something that is overly paranoid about some big beard in the sky taking notes, in my opinion ;)

Agreed. But who is doing that?

I think you'll find that no one is deriving ethics from science or suggesting that it should be the focus of society in the first place.

Well, I'm talking extreme example here, the point I suppose I'm trying to make is that a society that becomes too dependent on technology may, in fact, most likely will find it turning round and biting them in ways they never suspected.

As people have already correctly stated, we are already overly dependent on the produce of technology to some degree, but that cannot be helped, sheer volume of numbers requires those advancements, and millions would be dead without them, technology certainly has its uses, but it's kind of like the Douglas Adam joke about expelling telephone cleaners to another planet, which led to the entire population of the previous planet becoming extinct via a phone-transmitted disease.

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Quote
As for the rest, I feel a distinction needs to be made between science and its application. Saying that you shouldn't research something because it might be used for evil is like saying you shouldn't own kitchen knives because they might be used for stabbing someone.

But just to look at science without looking at the fact the other people get their hands on it's results is equally as pointless. That's exactly what I mean by science distancing itself from the outcome of what it does.


I don't think that's true, science is not distancing itself anymore than it used to. There is a couple decade lag between when they prove a groundbreaking theory and when it actually shows up in a consumer product. Take for example quantum theories. 30 years ago they seemed pointless and so "distant", but now more and more of our electronics use them (how do you think your USB jump drive works?)
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

  

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Heh, well, this could very easily turn into a case of 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' ;)

I suppose the problem not so much that it filters down, but that to become over-dependent on technology, to rely on weight loss tablets and operations, rather than simply dieting (at the very least, in non-genetic cases), to rely on home delivery of your Internet ordered groceries, to expect the TV or Computer to provide entertainment at any time...

All those inventions are wonderful things, Surgery, Medicine, the Internet etc, but they are tools, and becoming dependent on them is already starting backfire in ways we didn't suspect, the decreasing effectiveness of anti-biotics, increases in Morbid obesity, even mental 'addictions' such as MMO's and Chat Rooms, it's all symbols of our over-dependence on the very technologies that are supposed to be nothing more than a tool to augment our own natural toolbox.

It's not Science that is at fault, it is society that is to blame, the Internet was viewed as a vast online library. It says a great deal about humanity that it ended up as a vast online Porn shop. Technology is great. People, not so great.