Jump to content

Is Science to blame for the Depletion of the Ozone Layer?


Iwonderaboutthings

Recommended Posts

I read much on how "humanity" is to blame for air pollution.

But don't scientist create harmful chemical substances used in today's products?

 

From hairsprays, to gas and fuels, from air-conditioners, to the very preservatives in food.

 

I am aware of the more earth friendly alternatives of these products, however they can be quite expensive and un-affordable to " most of us, causing human awareness on these Atmospheric Concerns to be less of a concern when financial limitations are presented.

 

 

There is also the issues of scientific testing in where in the past have gone wrong causing not only depletion in the Ozone Layer but also costing animals and wildlife plus humans their " Lives."

 

 

It seems apparent that science is to blame for these issues, however, I am always willing to accept that these images are " Photoshoped"?

 

graphic image not related to pollution removed by mods

 

airpollution.jpg

 

From what I know, " most products" have warning labels on them from the harsh chemical implication on humans and the environment. OPPS! NOW by law we know this especially on cigarettes.

 

 

 

 

 

The hidden dangers of deodorant sprays

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2402692/The-hidden-dangers-deodorant-sprays-Headaches-Eczema-Asthma-Even-fatal-heart-problems.html

 

 

Protecting Whales from Dangerous Sonar

 

http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp

 

 

 

Space debris

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris

 

 

 

Like I said earlier, I am always willing to accept that I have been wrong with what I see on the news, what I read, what my teachers tell me, and what religion states on the matter that science is to blame for the many hazards we see in the earth's atmospheric changes and global warming issues...

 

 

 

I believe that humans do have free will when it comes to their decision making on earth friendly products, however their is a distinction between " the many brand names" and the "118 elements found periodical table periodic table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't scientist create harmful chemical substances used in today's products?

No, you're thinking of engineers, and your argument is a bit like saying that religion is to blame for young children being molested and raped instead of specific individuals who happen to practice religion.

 

 

"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world."

~ISAAC ASIMOV

 

 

It seems apparent that science is to blame for these issues

Whatever makes you feel better. Perhaps you should join a Mennonite community if you're so bothered by it all.

 

 

"The question is not whether "big is ugly," "small is beautiful," or technology is "appropriate." It is whether technologists will be ready for the demanding, often frustrating task of working with critical laypeople to develop what is needed or whether they will try to remain isolated, a luxury I doubt society will allow any longer."

~ROBERT C. COWAN

 

 

Oh, and by the way... About that ozone layer:

 

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/26may_ozone/

For the last 9 years, worldwide ozone has remained roughly constant, halting the decline first noticed in the 1980s.

<...>

Whatever the explanation, if the trend continues, the global ozone layer should be restored to 1980 levels sometime between 2030 and 2070. By then even the Antarctic ozone hole might close--for good.

More data here if you wish to soil yourself with that icky sciencey stuff you seem to detest so much: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2010/ozone_asst_report.html

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without science, we wouldn't know the ozone layer existed, that it was important, or that chlorofluorocarbons depleted it.

 

What damaged the ozone layer was not the discovery of CFC's - but the widespread use of them as a refrigerant and aerosol. Given at the time their harmful effects on the ozone layer were unknown at the time, I hardly think blame is really applicable. By your logic, Marie Curie is to blame for dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's hard to make the connection between her discovery and culpability of what someone would apply her discovery to years after her death.

 

As an aside the act of condemning science using a computer and the internet is rather ironic.

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blaming science seems like a means of avoiding ones own culpability. Global warming, for example, occurs because we make the choices that inject greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Trying to offload our responsibilities onto a convenient scapegoat is cowardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't blame the hammer because you smashed your thumb. Science is a tool, and is best wielded by experts. Experts who are allowed to be as rigorous as the method demands. The experts are rarely the ones rushing to market or cutting corners or covering up negative results.

 

 

 

 

This type of argument attempts to take the mistakes made and focus only on dire consequences and potential harm, ignoring all the benefits. As Arete points out, without science, we wouldn't know why we need to protect the ozone layer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has already been said in one way or another, but it is the application of science rather than the science itself that is the issue here. In the same way one should not blame scientists for how their discoveries are used or indeed misused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As previously mentioned, we're reversing the problem, and we wouldn't even be able to do that without science. Science is a tool, and it can be used to fix mistakes that we make.

Reversing the problem? Fix mistakes that we make? whos "we" ???

 

scientist>>?

 

That is my point here, " are " scientist to blame for all these "mistakes"?????

Blaming science seems like a means of avoiding ones own culpability. Global warming, for example, occurs because we make the choices that inject greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Trying to offload our responsibilities onto a convenient scapegoat is cowardly.

whos " we"?????? I keep seeing " we "

 

 

Scientist? People???

 

 

And what responsibility do you have???? Where did this duty come from???

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't blame the hammer because you smashed your thumb. Science is a tool, and is best wielded by experts. Experts who are allowed to be as rigorous as the method demands. The experts are rarely the ones rushing to market or cutting corners or covering up negative results.

 

 

 

 

This type of argument attempts to take the mistakes made and focus only on dire consequences and potential harm, ignoring all the benefits. As Arete points out, without science, we wouldn't know why we need to protect the ozone layer.

Why does " humanity? need this tool?

 

What can humanity benefit from this tool??

 

 

Expensive internet connections?

Expensive RAM chips

Expensive and fancy cell phones?

Expensive Radiology and Test Tumors Exams?

Expensive drug therapy?

Expensive " trips" and vacations?

Expensive plastic surgery?

Expensive Telescopes?

Expensive computer programs?

Examples calculators??

 

 

I think you get the point, what scientist invent is outrageously expensive not to mention the harm it does to the environment...

These have been my observations only, and from what I am seeing this world is more a mess now then ever before.

 

On the contrary, regular people day to day, never realize the harm cell phone use causes ie " EMF" not to mention texting while driving.

 

We have more on our plate now than ever before because of "science inventions."

 

What I would like to know "dis-regarding responsible choices" are scientist to blame for the harm on the environment, due to these and other inventions....

 

 

Its rather a simple question, yes or noconfused.gif

It seems fairly obvious from the context that they are referring to people in general.

" people in general" smokers for example, knew about the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke and second hand smoke, that we " now" see on the boxes?

No, you're thinking of engineers, and your argument is a bit like saying that religion is to blame for young children being molested and raped instead of specific individuals who happen to practice religion.

 

 

"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world."

~ISAAC ASIMOV

 

 

Whatever makes you feel better. Perhaps you should join a Mennonite community if you're so bothered by it all.

 

 

"The question is not whether "big is ugly," "small is beautiful," or technology is "appropriate." It is whether technologists will be ready for the demanding, often frustrating task of working with critical laypeople to develop what is needed or whether they will try to remain isolated, a luxury I doubt society will allow any longer."

~ROBERT C. COWAN

 

 

Oh, and by the way... About that ozone layer:

 

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/26may_ozone/

 

More data here if you wish to soil yourself with that icky sciencey stuff you seem to detest so much: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2010/ozone_asst_report.html

you must really hate religion??? HA HA! this has nothing to do with my OP, and if you don't get warned about this, I "wont" be surprised...wink.png

I think this has already been said in one way or another, but it is the application of science rather than the science itself that is the issue here. In the same way one should not blame scientists for how their discoveries are used or indeed misused.

thanks ajb, I should have used " application of science " that sounds better. I learn a lot from you wink.png

Thanks for your " patience."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does " humanity? need this tool?

 

What can humanity benefit from this tool??

....

 

We have more on our plate now than ever before because of "science inventions."

 

What I would like to know "dis-regarding responsible choices" are scientist to blame for the harm on the environment, due to these and other inventions....

 

 

Its rather a simple question, yes or noconfused.gif

 

There is a lot of "harm on the environment" from e-wastes and manufacturing effluents and by-products, but those are relatively local. Plastic itself causes many problems as trash in the Pacific. All sorts of assaults are being inflicted, through massive consumption and little recycling of products or wastes. While the scientists "invent" or facilitate the introduction of new technologies and products that make life better for many, it is the capitalists or the corporations that market the growth of consumption... and set up the system to discourage reuse or recycling.

 

And certainly it was not the scientists who discovered how to burn fossil fuels for heat or profit. Even electricity was just a novelty for decades, before somebody decided to generate and market and distrubute it to clients.

 

As others have said, it is not about the invention or discovery, but rather about the use and application of the invention or discovery (which science has little say in) that harms the environment; so I'd say "no" to science being to blame for either the ozone hole or general environmental harm, and certainly not to blame more than "Western Civilization" in general.

===

 

CO2 especially, and on a global scale, is harming the environment; both through acidification of the seas and skies and soils, and by retaining solar energy that is heating those same seas and skies and soils. The National Academies say that before the end of this century, we are on track to recreate conditions that have not existed on this planet for about 30 million years. Those conditions would not support our present agricultural (or other food and fiber harvesting) ecosystems, including arable soils, which only evolved within the past several million years.

 

Scientists are detailing and parameterizing the problems of massive consumption/emissions, and pointing out ways to solve these problems, but policy makers need to listen. However, I'm still not sure where (or why) you could look for blame. Even in the late 1800s, at least one scientist was warning that excessive burning of fossil fuels might warm the planet and stave of any future ice-age conditions. So maybe just some scientists need blaming, but then so do some people from every other segment of society, especially the profiteers.

 

~ imho smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its rather a simple question, yes or noconfused.gif

 

 

It is a rather simple question and you seem to have received a rather simple answer. No, scientists are not to blame.

 

You provided a list of what you claimed were expensive technical products. As a consequence of these products, this morning I have been able to make several major amendments to a document with over 150 pages, transmit these amendments half way around the planet and have them printed out and bound, ready for a course I shall deliver starting on Sunday. That ensures my students receive the most up to date version of data in an accessible format. Without the technology you claim is expensive this task would simply not have been possible, or - at best - would have taken well in excess of one week to implement. These "expensive products" have saved my company a great deal of money - and that is a single example of the type of benefit being derived multiple times every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does " humanity? need this tool?

We've evolved an incredible intelligence as a species. Together with our communications skills, walking upright to free hands with opposable thumbs and tool use, this intelligence needs a methodology for explaining the natural world that is resistant to bias and emotion. IOW, we're so smart we need an effective way to channel that intelligence so we create a foundation for future learning.

 

What can humanity benefit from this tool??

 

We're the only species on this planet capable of getting off of it. Earth will eventually be destroyed as Sol goes red giant, so unless we're willing as a species to sit here and be destroyed utterly, one benefit of science is that we may be able to colonize other planets and keep some of Earth's life living.

 

Expensive internet connections?

Expensive RAM chips

Expensive and fancy cell phones?

Expensive Radiology and Test Tumors Exams?

Expensive drug therapy?

Expensive " trips" and vacations?

Expensive plastic surgery?

Expensive Telescopes?

Expensive computer programs?

Examples calculators??

 

 

I think you get the point, what scientist invent is outrageously expensive not to mention the harm it does to the environment...

These have been my observations only, and from what I am seeing this world is more a mess now then ever before.

You're allowing yourself to be too general in your claims. And expense is not really the concern of science; non-scientists typically control the money and set the prices.

 

Your perspective regarding the mess the world is in is also highly subjective. With regards to human rights, we're better off globally than we ever have been in the past. With regard to food, shelter and medicine, again we're better off globally than we ever have been before.

 

On the contrary, regular people day to day, never realize the harm cell phone use causes ie " EMF" not to mention texting while driving.

The radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing. If it were dangerous to you, your eyes would probably fry first due to proximity and a lack of blood flow to dissipate heat. We don't see that happening, and all other experiments point to no short-term damage. Tests are still being conducted to determine long-term damage. These tests are being done scientifically, to maximize the trustworthiness of their findings.

 

Texting while driving can hardly be blamed on science. That's like saying everyone who was murdered with a baseball bat has Abner Doubleday to blame. If he hadn't invented baseball, we wouldn't have had all those big sticks lying around to kill people with.

 

We have more on our plate now than ever before because of "science inventions."

And we have more plates than ever before, so I think we can handle it.

 

What I would like to know "dis-regarding responsible choices" are scientist to blame for the harm on the environment, due to these and other inventions....

Would you blame Milton-Bradley because they invented the board game you stayed up late playing last night and made you late for work, causing you to be fired? I guarantee they didn't design their game to get you fired.

 

The same can be said of virtually any scientific invention. They aren't designed to harm the environment, that's a side effect, and another part of science is to correct its mistakes, so generally anything that is harming the environment has a team of scientists studying how to reduce that harm.

 

 

 

What are you really asking here? Are you saying that we'd all be better off without science? I see a world of millions of separate villages, isolated from a common humanity by a lack of broad communication, with an incredible amount of warfare with crude weapons and warped, uneducated ideologies. I don't think we'd all be in some idyllic pastoral setting, living off the land and working and playing nice with each other. That's certainly not what happened historically, say in the Dark Ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's so much ignorance and invective packed into each post that I can only conclude this person is an intentional troll, or so far gone already that valid rebuttals and responses are a complete waste of all of our time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does " humanity? need this tool?

 

Well I guess technically speaking, humans don't "need" science, given we as a species persisted for tens of thousands of years as hunter-gatherer tribes. But on the other hand you'd be hard pressed to disentangle the development of early technology which enabled survival (e.g. spear throwers, bows and arrows, basic agriculture, etc) from what would eventually be called science.

 

 

 

What can humanity benefit from this tool??

 

A comprehensive list would be enormous. But a few choice picks might be the several orders of magnitude increase infood production afforded by modern agricultural practices and vastly increased lifespan of modern humans attributable to modern medicine.

 

 

 

I think you get the point, what scientist invent is outrageously expensive

 

a) "Expensive" is a highly subjective, relative term. I personally think $5 USD for lunch is affordable, people living in the Central African Republic probably think that paying that much for a single meal is ludicrous. Why do you get to decide what is and isn't expensive in relation to scientific developments?

b) The problem with hasty generalizations (a logical fallacy by the way - a type of argument not generally allowed here) is that it only takes a single example to derail the entire line of argument.

 

For example, Schistosomiasis kills between 12,000 and 200,000 people annually. It can be treated using a single, annual dose of the drug praziquantel for the cost of about 0.25 US cents (yes, that's a QUARTER OF ONE CENT).

 

 

 

 

not to mention the harm it does to the environment...

 

Conservation biology and ecology are sciences.Burning fossil fuels significantly predates the advent of modern science. You would have no idea that these activities were bad for the environment without science.

 

 

 

These have been my observations only

 

I guess one of the problems we're facing in this thread is that many of your personal observations aren't generally extrapolatable in a general sense, and many appear to be simply wrong.

 

 

 

Its rather a simple question, yes or no
confused.gif

 

Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You present a series of questions, and a series of unsupported assertions and then demand a simple answer. That isn't really fair. People are going to address your assertions and your several questions before providing an answer. If you want simple answers, ask simple questions without a series of assertions.

 

 

 

Thanks for your " patience."

 

A friendly tip on you use of language here - by putting the word "patience" in quotation marks, you imply that ajb's patience is simply a pretense. It's a pretty condescending and combative way to engage in discussion. The tone of your post would be more even without inflammatory statements like this, and you'd probably get a more measured response.

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expensive internet connections?

Expensive RAM chips

Expensive and fancy cell phones?

Expensive Radiology and Test Tumors Exams?

Expensive drug therapy?

Expensive " trips" and vacations?

Expensive plastic surgery?

Expensive Telescopes?

Expensive computer programs?

Examples calculators??

 

 

 

As has been pointed out, scientists do not control the price of these things.

 

Further, many of these (e.g. computer chips and related items like phones) are deflationary! Every year you get more processing power and more memory for about the same cost, which doesn't even account for real inflation. According to the CPI for the US, a dollar today has twice the purchasing power as a dollar around 1987-88. Now compare what kind of computer you could have gotten back then, and how much data storage — in '87 you could get an IBM PS/2 Model 30 for around $2300 (or >$4600 in today's dollars, for a speedy 8MHz 8086 CPU, and a whopping 640KB of RAM, and a huge 20MB hard drive, and didn't include the MS-DOS operating system; Windows wasn't invented yet. A Mac IIx cost $7800 when it was introduced in 1988)

 

Expensive? Perhaps once, but today they are cheap and getting cheaper all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I attempt to put this thread on a slightly less ranty heading whilst also considering some aspects of the OP. We have read considered, and in my opinion completely valid, defences of science and criticisms of the OP's attack on scientific progress - many along the lines of science is a tool, it is the application of science; all of which I agree with. However they do cause a very faint, almost ignorable, but distressing echo in my head - and it sounds like "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 

So my question would be - at which point (if any) do scientists as individual moral agents have to make a decision not to disseminate an idea, to foreclose on their own research, and to hide the truth for fear of what other may do with the scientist's newly found knowledge. Some groups of scientists/publishers/government have felt this point was reached already in the use of polecats to accelerate the transfer of animal flus to humans - although at least one of the papers argued over was finally published (the other is stuck in the Dutch courts I believe). I would prefer not to discuss the ferret flu papers as there is real merit in allowing publication to be balanced against the dangers involved and it was not the researchers who stopped the research but outside bodies - so more hypothetically; do the respondents above and other members believe there is a place where the individual scientist must stop. Does the sanctity of the quest for knowledge and understanding ever get trumped by the fact that some fool will use this discovery to kill millions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the sanctity of the quest for knowledge and understanding ever get trumped by the fact that some fool will use this discovery to kill millions?

The scientist has the share of responsibility of any citizen, naturally. But far greater, they have a responsibility given to them by virtue of their understanding, which policy makers and the general public do not share. It is their duty to ensure that any and all dangers of their science, if foreseen, are guarded against and properly forewarned.

 

A discovery that could kill millions? You should probably disseminate the idea to the people that can best prevent such a disastrous outcome. Completely covering up the idea does not guarantee that someone else will make the discovery, that it will leak, and that disaster will ensue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's so much ignorance and invective packed into each post that I can only conclude this person is an intentional troll, or so far gone already that valid rebuttals and responses are a complete waste of all of our time.

 

Iwonderaboutthings has too many posts on these forums to be a troll, unless he or she is just a troll with a very long attention span. Perhaps he or she just doesn't understand what science and capitalism are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of "harm on the environment" from e-wastes and manufacturing effluents and by-products, but those are relatively local. Plastic itself causes many problems as trash in the Pacific. All sorts of assaults are being inflicted, through massive consumption and little recycling of products or wastes. While the scientists "invent" or facilitate the introduction of new technologies and products that make life better for many, it is the capitalists or the corporations that market the growth of consumption... and set up the system to discourage reuse or recycling.

 

And certainly it was not the scientists who discovered how to burn fossil fuels for heat or profit. Even electricity was just a novelty for decades, before somebody decided to generate and market and distrubute it to clients.

 

As others have said, it is not about the invention or discovery, but rather about the use and application of the invention or discovery (which science has little say in) that harms the environment; so I'd say "no" to science being to blame for either the ozone hole or general environmental harm, and certainly not to blame more than "Western Civilization" in general.

===

 

CO2 especially, and on a global scale, is harming the environment; both through acidification of the seas and skies and soils, and by retaining solar energy that is heating those same seas and skies and soils. The National Academies say that before the end of this century, we are on track to recreate conditions that have not existed on this planet for about 30 million years. Those conditions would not support our present agricultural (or other food and fiber harvesting) ecosystems, including arable soils, which only evolved within the past several million years.

 

Scientists are detailing and parameterizing the problems of massive consumption/emissions, and pointing out ways to solve these problems, but policy makers need to listen. However, I'm still not sure where (or why) you could look for blame. Even in the late 1800s, at least one scientist was warning that excessive burning of fossil fuels might warm the planet and stave of any future ice-age conditions. So maybe just some scientists need blaming, but then so do some people from every other segment of society, especially the profiteers.

 

~ imho smile.png

Yes some scientist do need blaming and I agree with you.I think that many people just blame science as a whole and don't realize that their exist good scientist and bad ones?

 

 

It has been hinted that scientist have little say in their discoveries?

are these patented issues?

 

Meaning others take away ownership of discoveries?

 

It would not surprise me one bit.

 

So if this would be the case, then why bother with science?

 

Their are other jobs out there.

It seems fairly obvious from the context that they are referring to people in general.

Just for the record I was warned about not answering to post "consistently" and when I do someone else answers for this person I replied to...

 

This very reply was for

Jake1

 

 

As you can see, Jake1 accused me of not being consistent with replies in another posting "Do Scientist Believe in Love"

 

is there another method of avoiding this confusion?

 

 

It is a rather simple question and you seem to have received a rather simple answer. No, scientists are not to blame.

 

You provided a list of what you claimed were expensive technical products. As a consequence of these products, this morning I have been able to make several major amendments to a document with over 150 pages, transmit these amendments half way around the planet and have them printed out and bound, ready for a course I shall deliver starting on Sunday. That ensures my students receive the most up to date version of data in an accessible format. Without the technology you claim is expensive this task would simply not have been possible, or - at best - would have taken well in excess of one week to implement. These "expensive products" have saved my company a great deal of money - and that is a single example of the type of benefit being derived multiple times every day.

that's evolution in today's world and personal preferences. were talking about " pollution."

But I do appreciate you being an educator, I would just hope you are grasping the point here..

There's so much ignorance and invective packed into each post that I can only conclude this person is an intentional troll, or so far gone already that valid rebuttals and responses are a complete waste of all of our time.

Well if your a MOD, then suspend my account and or give me warnings,, can you do this????

If not please refrain from instigating others with your personal likes and dislikes pertaining to---->" debates."

 

As has been pointed out, scientists do not control the price of these things.

 

Further, many of these (e.g. computer chips and related items like phones) are deflationary! Every year you get more processing power and more memory for about the same cost, which doesn't even account for real inflation. According to the CPI for the US, a dollar today has twice the purchasing power as a dollar around 1987-88. Now compare what kind of computer you could have gotten back then, and how much data storage — in '87 you could get an IBM PS/2 Model 30 for around $2300 (or >$4600 in today's dollars, for a speedy 8MHz 8086 CPU, and a whopping 640KB of RAM, and a huge 20MB hard drive, and didn't include the MS-DOS operating system; Windows wasn't invented yet. A Mac IIx cost $7800 when it was introduced in 1988)

 

Expensive? Perhaps once, but today they are cheap and getting cheaper all the time.

So then " obviously" there are some things that scientist can't control" that being greed and financial systems....

 

Iwonderaboutthings has too many posts on these forums to be a troll, unless he or she is just a troll with a very long attention span. Perhaps he or she just doesn't understand what science and capitalism are.

Well I am still waning for the day when G, h and c are all = 1 within SI Units.

 

Till then you may be right wink.png HA!

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll reply to the rest of this when I get home, but I must point out that when you say there are some things scientists can't control, no one is disagreeing with you. Science is simply a method of investigation, not an attempt to control everything at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've evolved an incredible intelligence as a species. Together with our communications skills, walking upright to free hands with opposable thumbs and tool use, this intelligence needs a methodology for explaining the natural world that is resistant to bias and emotion. IOW, we're so smart we need an effective way to channel that intelligence so we create a foundation for future learning.

 

 

We're the only species on this planet capable of getting off of it. Earth will eventually be destroyed as Sol goes red giant, so unless we're willing as a species to sit here and be destroyed utterly, one benefit of science is that we may be able to colonize other planets and keep some of Earth's life living.

 

You're allowing yourself to be too general in your claims. And expense is not really the concern of science; non-scientists typically control the money and set the prices.

 

Your perspective regarding the mess the world is in is also highly subjective. With regards to human rights, we're better off globally than we ever have been in the past. With regard to food, shelter and medicine, again we're better off globally than we ever have been before.

 

The radiation from cell phones is non-ionizing. If it were dangerous to you, your eyes would probably fry first due to proximity and a lack of blood flow to dissipate heat. We don't see that happening, and all other experiments point to no short-term damage. Tests are still being conducted to determine long-term damage. These tests are being done scientifically, to maximize the trustworthiness of their findings.

 

Texting while driving can hardly be blamed on science. That's like saying everyone who was murdered with a baseball bat has Abner Doubleday to blame. If he hadn't invented baseball, we wouldn't have had all those big sticks lying around to kill people with.

 

And we have more plates than ever before, so I think we can handle it.

 

Would you blame Milton-Bradley because they invented the board game you stayed up late playing last night and made you late for work, causing you to be fired? I guarantee they didn't design their game to get you fired.

 

The same can be said of virtually any scientific invention. They aren't designed to harm the environment, that's a side effect, and another part of science is to correct its mistakes, so generally anything that is harming the environment has a team of scientists studying how to reduce that harm.

 

 

 

What are you really asking here? Are you saying that we'd all be better off without science? I see a world of millions of separate villages, isolated from a common humanity by a lack of broad communication, with an incredible amount of warfare with crude weapons and warped, uneducated ideologies. I don't think we'd all be in some idyllic pastoral setting, living off the land and working and playing nice with each other. That's certainly not what happened historically, say in the Dark Ages.

I also see separate villages rather worlds in social media in our current day and age, where anyone can be anyone behind a computer screen. uneducated ideologies I believe will remain no matter what type of educational systems are present.

 

Infact, I think the more humanity knows the more corrupt and secretive humanity becomes, Hence Victoria' Secret"wink.png

 

Living off the land would be a great idea IE: no synthetic foods, preservatives and etc.

 

As per the dark ages, From What I Know: It was caused by relocating certain eatable goods from one country to the other, in the process the relocated food "rot" due to climate changes, which caused major problems and major starvation to begin, this " being only one of them." AGAIN FROM WHAT I KNOW OF THE STORY. However I am sure it was due to what we see today, simply "human greed."

 

I am aware the Dark Ages had quite a few other issues that example was just one of them.

 

The whole matter is yes I truly believe that we would be better off without the " science" utilities we have till date..

 

QM " still relies on Classical Physics " Equations thus, G, h and c do not pair to be = 1 as per SI units...

 

WHY???????? Is this what is causing issues with global warming??

Is it due to incorrect methods of " translation"? IE measures??

 

There is too many missing pieces in Science to be even termed science. Which is the reason why I believe that the " application" needs much much work if science ever plans to work in more earthly ways..

 

Give or take, science " does not mimic mother nature, due to this."

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well I guess technically speaking, humans don't "need" science, given we as a species persisted for tens of thousands of years as hunter-gatherer tribes. But on the other hand you'd be hard pressed to disentangle the development of early technology which enabled survival (e.g. spear throwers, bows and arrows, basic agriculture, etc) from what would eventually be called science.

 

 

 

 

A comprehensive list would be enormous. But a few choice picks might be the several orders of magnitude increase infood production afforded by modern agricultural practices and vastly increased lifespan of modern humans attributable to modern medicine.

 

 

 

 

a) "Expensive" is a highly subjective, relative term. I personally think $5 USD for lunch is affordable, people living in the Central African Republic probably think that paying that much for a single meal is ludicrous. Why do you get to decide what is and isn't expensive in relation to scientific developments?

b) The problem with hasty generalizations (a logical fallacy by the way - a type of argument not generally allowed here) is that it only takes a single example to derail the entire line of argument.

 

For example, Schistosomiasis kills between 12,000 and 200,000 people annually. It can be treated using a single, annual dose of the drug praziquantel for the cost of about 0.25 US cents (yes, that's a QUARTER OF ONE CENT).

 

 

 

 

 

Conservation biology and ecology are sciences.Burning fossil fuels significantly predates the advent of modern science. You would have no idea that these activities were bad for the environment without science.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess one of the problems we're facing in this thread is that many of your personal observations aren't generally extrapolatable in a general sense, and many appear to be simply wrong.

 

 

 

 

confused.gif

 

Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You present a series of questions, and a series of unsupported assertions and then demand a simple answer. That isn't really fair. People are going to address your assertions and your several questions before providing an answer. If you want simple answers, ask simple questions without a series of assertions.

 

 

 

 

 

A friendly tip on you use of language here - by putting the word "patience" in quotation marks, you imply that ajb's patience is simply a pretense. It's a pretty condescending and combative way to engage in discussion. The tone of your post would be more even without inflammatory statements like this, and you'd probably get a more measured response.

 

Thanks for your responses your time has been appreciated, " seriously" but please don't tell me to be careful with my style and or " fashion" showing appreciation to other members " whom have impressed me."

It makes you seem Jealouswink.png

 

Not really concerned with " answers" more over with facts.. I have read and read and I have concluded that science like regular people all share the same notion in common when dealing with hidden scheme, fame, riches and what have you..

 

In my personal opinion, no one understands this world, no one respects true science for what it is, and really no one seems to dare challenge themselves with " true discoveries" at least in a original method these days. Boringblink.png

 

it seems like students are more concerned with grades and a 6 figure a year job versus the art and elegance of scientific creation. They eventually become these very scientist.

 

HOWEVER, can I blame them????? In today';s world scientist whom want to " really discover things" need to do so on their own! Leaving behind the granola bars, birkenstocks and comfort zones and walk into the lions mouth hopefully out the other end in one piece. Otherwise you end up ridiculed like Max Planck and Albert Eisenstein for thinking out of the box.

 

 

 

 

 

The progress of science, has been dreadfully awefull, irresponsible and 100% A WASTE OF TAX PAYER MONEY..

I'll reply to the rest of this when I get home, but I must point out that when you say there are some things scientists can't control, no one is disagreeing with you. Science is simply a method of investigation, not an attempt to control everything at all times.

I know that, and thanks for pointing that out.

 

But you see their is the issue with G, h and c, they appear to be incompatible to 1 as per SI units....

 

How then can you investigate something like this?

 

Particle Collisions?

 

Have you any idea how expensive these test are???

 

Think about it, loads of money goes into these test and the environment is the last thing on a scientist's mind.

 

Since the results of these test are not previously known to exist yet, how does scientists know they are safe to perform in the first place????

 

I guess they take risks??

 

 

That is what this entire OP is all about...

As previously mentioned, we're reversing the problem, and we wouldn't even be able to do that without science. Science is a tool, and it can be used to fix mistakes that we make.

I think you need to do some research on Hiroshima Jake1, seriously no joking here..

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.