[lostllama]

Thing is, we've created a sort of perpetual motion for creating technology, technology increases free time, which increases the amount of time people can dedicate to inventing ways of making more free time. Hence why you can get devices that talk to your plants, because the Western World has lots of free time.

I suppose this was my point in the 'Longevity' thread that was up a few weeks ago, that the changes inherent in extending life are far more wide-reaching than simply living longer, and that, as you say, a society that becomes too dependent on it's science is as dangerous in it's own way as a society that bases itself entirely on religion.

I agree.

[Ghostavo]

I suppose this was my point in the 'Longevity' thread that was up a few weeks ago, that the changes inherent in extending life are far more wide-reaching than simply living longer, and that, as you say, a society that becomes too dependent on it's science is as dangerous in it's own way as a society that bases itself entirely on religion.

We have long since passed the point of no return. Even our food nowadays is a result of our technology.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Yeah...even cars these days are electronically limited.

[Flipside]

We have long since passed the point of no return. Even our food nowadays is a result of our technology.

Indeed, at least in the case of the Western World, which is contributing in no small factor to the entire 'equality' question here, no hunters, no gatherers, just Online Shopping.

I suppose we need remind ourselves that whilst society uses technology, it doesn't consist of it.

[lostllama]

We have long since passed the point of no return. Even our food nowadays is a result of our technology.

In terms of food processing, I suppose it is to an extent. It's interesting in that there's a market for organic produce, though. But even then I think there has to be some degree of technology to ensure quality.

[Flipside]

I dislike the amount of insect-sprays we use on crops, though we've always added chemicals to our crops, be it DDT or Camel Dung, it's always mildly funny how people will claim that plants that have been sprayed with weedkiller are contaminated by soaking up the chemicals, yet ones that have been grown on a bed of manure are perfectly fine and healthy

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Doesn't manure work as some kind of fertiliser?

[lostllama]

Manure = organic fertilizer.

[karajorma]

it's always mildly funny how people will claim that plants that have been sprayed with weedkiller are contaminated by soaking up the chemicals, yet ones that have been grown on a bed of manure are perfectly fine and healthy

It's especially funny when they go on and on about how artificial fertilisers are bad for you and that they refuse to eat anything unhealthy like that....and then end up with E. Coli poisoning.

[Mika]

It's especially funny when they go on and on about how artificial fertilisers are bad for you and that they refuse to eat anything unhealthy like that....and then end up with E. Coli poisoning.

Huh? During the 26 years I have lived - 18 first pretty close to farmers - I have never heard of a single case of this happening (in Finland that is), and those farmers put quite a lot of **** on the fields. Unless such people are morons, I have no idea how could they get E. Coli. There have been far more better chances for food poisoning in the ethnic restaurants who most likely use imported food. In here, that is.

Mika

[karajorma]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/13/MNG71LOT711.DTL

Too sleepy to search for a link where it came from plants where there was no possibility of contamination from actual cattle but I remember reading once that out of the 400+ outbreaks one of the major government bodies in the UK had looked at the majority hadn't come from eating meat but were instead from eating vegetables grown in manure.

[Kosh]

a society that becomes too dependent on it's science is as dangerous in it's own way as a society that bases itself entirely on religion.

How so? We're already well past the point of no return (at least the developed world). Everything we eat uses technology in some form or another to grow the food and get it to the market.

Too sleepy to search for a link where it came from plants where there was no possibility of contamination from actual cattle but I remember reading once that out of the 400+ outbreaks one of the major government bodies in the UK had looked at the majority hadn't come from eating meat but were instead from eating vegetables grown in manure.

So Finnish **** is cleaner than British ****?

[Flipside]

Because, as Terry Pratchett put it, if the plug ever got pulled out of the bottom of the Universe, there'd be a human at the other end of the chain saying 'I was only curious'

[Excalibur]

Read my signature...

though you need more info for what it really is - I'm thinking of writing a story, but it may take a while before I release it to anyone. I haven't even finsihed the characters, places, objects/weapons, things, etc.

And I want it to become a movie with my selection of atmospheric music. (Hint at someone who can't be seen around here - check out his name to find out why - if you visit him you'll nver return)

[Kosh]

Because, as Terry Pratchett put it, if the plug ever got pulled out of the bottom of the Universe, there'd be a human at the other end of the chain saying 'I was only curious'

So basically we will destroy the universe out of curiosity?

[Flipside]

It's a metaphor, it means that the reason society is sometimes wary of Science is because has a habit of doing things just because it's a good idea at the time, after all, we don't send death-row prisoners off to be tested on until they die for a reason, it's inhumane, even though it's scientifically sensible.

Look at the state the UK is now in because it was 'efficient' to use technology to put cameras on every street corner, it's certainly a scientific solution, not a human one, and it's caused nothing but trouble. Look at ID tags, Microwave crowd suppression devices etc, all of them scientifically viable, Science can be a bigger monster in the closet than Religion can, because the nature of Science is that it works.

Science thinks about the tool, not the hand that wields it, and that's it's weakness, it doesn't deal with people, it deals with cold, hard facts, and that's the one thing that people aren't.

[General Battuta]

...well, except for social sciences.

And, of course, all our morality and culture is just a way to hide from the fact that the universe really is made of cold, hard facts. Not to say I disapprove -- I like our morality very much -- but science, as you say, doesn't deal in illusions.

[Flipside]

Social Sciences are mostly considered 'Humanities' in most circles, you certainly won't find a Chemistry professor who cared what a Psychology Professor thought about the ramifications of his research (or, in some cases, even understood the danger).  Indeed, Science has always made a large issue of the fact that they are finding knowledge for knowledge's sake and aren't responsible for the practical application of what they discover.

Even the scientists who did suspect the potential of Nuclear Fission as a weapon continued to research it, and this was despite the fact that, at the time, they weren't sure if the weapon would set the atmosphere of the planet on fire or continue to react beyond the blast area, consuming the entire planet. We now know they won't, but when the first bomb was dropped, they weren't actually sure, since Germany was suspected of developing an H-bomb too, it was decided that if anyone was going to destroy the planet, it should be the good guys.

And, of course, all are morality and culture is just a way to hide from the fact that the universe really is made of cold, hard facts. Not to say I disapprove -- I like our morality very much -- but science, as you say, doesn't deal in illusions.

The Universe may be cold, hard facts, but people are not, they are random, and frightened and selfish. Science can push society upwards, but we should never let the Science become more important to us than each other.

[BloodEagle]

We now know they won't, but when the first bomb was dropped, they weren't actually sure, since Germany was suspected of developing an H-bomb too, it was decided that if anyone was going to destroy the planet, it should be the good guys.

 

[karajorma]

Even the scientists who did suspect the potential of Nuclear Fission as a weapon continued to research it, and this was despite the fact that, at the time, they weren't sure if the weapon would set the atmosphere of the planet on fire or continue to react beyond the blast area, consuming the entire planet. We now know they won't, but when the first bomb was dropped, they weren't actually sure, since Germany was suspected of developing an H-bomb too, it was decided that if anyone was going to destroy the planet, it should be the good guys.

Not true. That possibility had worried the scientists earlier on in the project but by the time of the actual Trinity test they considered setting the atmosphere on fire to be impossible.


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.

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.