Humans and Earth

[s1eep]

Should we be more considerate of the Earth, when conducting science, because of its significance to us and our significance in comparison, plus the fact our resources are limited? And is the technological dominance over the world, including words and other less explicit types of technology, likely to compromise the long-term stability of planet Earth?

What I’m trying to ask, which is most purely put in the prior paragraph, is if humans and Earth are conjoined in some, maybe complex way (such as through genetics), as well as dependant on for wants and, for a long time, needs, and if we are to conduct science, should there be laws that prohibit technology that damages vital nature (such as cars polluting the atmosphere; nuclear waste; electricity on a mass-scale)?

Scientists talk about ‘terraforming’ other planets and making them ‘Earth-like’, but all the while I have this very chilling feeling that we’re destroying our own Earth. If we are, which seems so because of the copious amounts of consumption and waste-material produced, why prospect terraforming? There must be some coherent value in the world (to its inhabitants), for us to want to create new Earths…

I think science, because of its pro-state agendas, delves into stupid things like nuclear weapons (I’m not restricting this to one particular government; war wariness could have been a factor, but humanity is stupid for getting in that position), and serves the states ideology, more so than the science and philosophy behind humans. This may be conducted through Academia---pro-state Academia, the declared teachers, teach the values which affect our social conditioning; all of our wants, desires and deepest fantasies, are based on our knowledge; evidently, everyone educated in the first world is pro-state. Should scientists stand to serve the species or a particular population, and not the public opinion, because the Government’s of the world tend to accept dangerous technologies, and pervert reality to some extent? In the near future we may enter World War III, or perhaps our consumption and waste-output will cause the Earth to become unhealthy. This is not something I would want for my children, or the future children of humanity.

Is there a purer type of scientific method, one that includes (is considerate of) the organism and habitat of the organism that conducts the science, rather than perceiving science as an entity that advances in the direction of the state or public opinion, or things that fit into the states ideology?

I think that objective morality exists, and we all have it, but we live in such a complex reality it’s ever-changing; there are so many things to do, it’s almost ephemeral. To the majority, because we eat, drink and sleep, survival is a key aspect in our lives; it’s not something we choose to believe in; because of our actions, we are all objective about surviving. There are good and evil things we can do (in correspondence with the objective: survival) and when it comes to eating, drinking and sleeping, we tend to do the good thing. We can choose other objectives, if we were being rational, would we choose to be objective about the Earth because of its significance to us (closeness, size, support, etc)?

Before I conclude I would like to mention, economical issues do not precede everything else, so brushing world issues under the carpet because science is good for the economy, doesn’t mean it’s good.

Edited August 10, 2014 by s1eep

[Roamer]

We are "conjoined" with the earth because we live there, just like our relatives.

Which brings us to terraforming.(although i suspect it's mainly sci-fi writers who talk about terraforming instead of real scientists for now)

Terraforming means we have another place to live and are no longer dependent on this - one - planet, it's not just more living-space but also a second home might something go wrong with the earth.(like a nuclear accident or a big war)

And pollution-wise, we're alive, we interact, some three centuries ago we did it differently and nature consumed our waste, nowadays nature has more trouble with that but we 're also aware of that now and deal with it.

 

Economics is how we get our stuff, science is knowing how to make/get stuff.

We can't live without our stuff

[Ophiolite]

I think you are confusing science and engineering. The problems that exist - and they are very real, very serious problems - are a consequence of the application of science, i.e. engineering, not the science itself. You may argue that the two are intimately linked, but it requires a political decision - in the broadest sense - to apply the science.

[cladking]

I'm sorry but I can't see the point of worrying about the planet. We reward the few like never before to dig resources from the earth and convert them to garbage that is shoveled right back in the ground. We invent new ways to destroy products so that waste increases exponentially as billions starve and a few growth rich beyond the dreams of avarice. We release toxins into the enviroment and pump our food full of chemicals in order to make a few wealthy.

 

If all this weren't bad enough we have politicians who claim to believe in global warming and rising oceans and then use tax payer money to assure cities are built right on the waters edge. "Spotted owls" are protected but humans are so much floatsam and the planet is expendable if you think you have enough money to protect yourself.

 

Destruction and borrowing from the future is the order of the day. Hypocrisy and greed fuel an idiocracy. There's no room for humans and there's certainly no room for a future so there's no need to plan for one.

[Ophiolite]

In summary, then - the glass is not half empty, but cast on the floor and ground underfoot by the jackboots of indifference.

 

Alternatively, a world that can do this is not without hope.

[cladking]

In summary, then - the glass is not half empty, but cast on the floor and ground underfoot by the jackboots of indifference.

Yes. Hipocrisy and greed drive the economy and the indifference of the many allow it.

 

There's always hope and perhaps more now than ever before. People can wake up suddenly and be galvanized behind an event generated by and representative of the trends which made it possible. The pendulum reverses and then we go too far the other way.

 

One of the most frightening things about the current situation is that the pendulum is hyperextended. It achieved this because normally the race couldn't even feed itself with things so lobsided. It was also made possible by the fact that most people feel safe to let others think about complicated subjects and how things work. Part of the mess is the collapse of the educational system which has the effect of exascerbating problems (especially these specific problems) and making them more difficult to rectify. It also means any possible recovery will be measured in generations instead of years.

[swansont]

 

If all this weren't bad enough we have politicians who claim to believe in global warming and rising oceans and then use tax payer money to assure cities are built right on the waters edge.

 

Are these the same politicians?

[Fuzzwood]

This ball of rock will still be orbiting that fiery ball of plasma long after humanity died out.

[s1eep]

This ball of rock will still be orbiting that fiery ball of plasma long after humanity died out.

But life on the planet won't be fluctuating in the great manner that it was prior to humans; it won't be so special.

[cladking]

Are these the same politicians?

I seriously doubt you'd get many in the US Congress who would deny that global warming is a global threat caused by the actions of man. Among these I'd guess the majority would agree rising oceans will be the result.

 

Yet they voted with a majority to use tax-payer money to fund the insurance that will allow cities to be built in low lying areas along the coasts.

 

I'm just guessing as to what Congresspeople believe since there's really no other way to know in almost every case.

[Acme]

I seriously doubt you'd get many in the US Congress who would deny that global warming is a global threat caused by the actions of man. Among these I'd guess the majority would agree rising oceans will be the result.

...

I'm just guessing as to what Congresspeople believe since there's really no other way to know in almost every case.

If Congress is representative of the population at large, then your doubt is unfounded. Perhaps you could clarify your winky comment about 'really no other way to know in almost every case. ;)'. Isn't the way to know what any people think, is to ask them?

 

Section 7: Global Warming, Environment and Energy

 

June 26, 2014...Wide majorities of Steadfast Conservatives (75%) and Business Conservatives (71%) say there is not solid evidence the Earth is warming the only two typology groups with a majority who hold this view. Nearly half of Steadfast Conservatives (49%) say warming is not happening at all, while 25% say not enough is yet known. Business Conservatives are divided, with about as many saying it is not happening (36%) as say that not enough is yet known (33%). ...

[swansont]

I seriously doubt you'd get many in the US Congress who would deny that global warming is a global threat caused by the actions of man.

 

Really? You're not from around here, are you?

 

Does more than half of congressional Republicans count? (and of the Republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology it's 17 out of 22 )

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/

[cladking]

I stand corrected.

 

It was my understanding that this was "settled" science and anyone who didn't agree was a knuckle dragging troglodyte. We are afterall spending billions of dollars so it seemed that when naysayers are called "deniers" etc then there must be a pretty strong belief in the computer models.

 

I don't track the US media at all any longer.

 

 

...Perhaps you could clarify your winky comment...

 

Most politicians talk out of both sides of their face and vote opposite what they say anyway. It was meant as a more subtle poke at politicians.

[s1eep]

Is a scientists "know it all" mentality, projecting pseudo-knowledge, because our true mentality would be to "know ourselves" (which includes Earth; if we're combined)?

 

Is advancement really off the planet? Where to may I ask, other planets, maybe another planet like Earth?

 

If it's for resources, or because of overpopulation, there are more efficient methods that serve more specifically future children, such as euthanasia to a major part of the adult population, those causing the most waste and harm to humanity's future (let's remember that the conditions in the future will be harsh and people, including children, will suffer), anti-natalism, using renewable energy sources, being more resourceful, and there are probably other methods. So why go to other planets again?

 

And back to terraforming, why not just terraform Earth, or clean-up Earth and make our realities more efficient?

[Acme]

...If it's for resources, or because of overpopulation, there are more efficient methods that serve more specifically future children, such as euthanasia to a major part of the adult population,...

Are you volunteering? Logan's Run anybody?

[s1eep]

Are you volunteering? <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan" s_run"="">Logan's Run anybody?

I will volunteer, though, my dedication for the preservation of nature would be put to good use if I was alive.

 

I made this thread...

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep

[Acme]

...

I stand corrected.

 

It was my understanding that this was "settled" science and anyone who didn't agree was a knuckle dragging troglodyte. We are afterall spending billions of dollars so it seemed that when naysayers are called "deniers" etc then there must be a pretty strong belief in the computer models.

I don't track the US media at all any longer.

Our pleasure.

 

You may be interested in the Is Political Conservatism a mild form of Insanity? thread for an analytical perspective on the psychology of conservative trogladytism in the US and other countries.

 

Most politicians talk out of both sides of their face and vote opposite what they say anyway. It was meant as a more subtle poke at politicians.

While poking is admittedly fun, it would be interesting to see a study on this type of oral dysfunction.

 

I will volunteer, though, my dedication for the preservation of nature would be put to good use if I was alive.

 

I made this thread...

Your posts insofar as I have read are full of meaningless gibberish. It is as if you were as1eep and having a nightmare when you made this thread.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Acme

[s1eep]

...

 

Our pleasure.

 

You may be interested in the Is Political Conservatism a mild form of Insanity? thread for an analytical perspective on the psychology of conservative trogladytism in the US and other countries.

 

While poking is admittedly fun, it would be interesting to see a study on this type of oral dysfunction.

 

 

Your posts insofar as I have read are full of meaningless gibberish. It is as if you were as1eep and having a nightmare when you made this thread.

If you can point out where in this thread, I'll be surprised....

 

It's nothing in comparison to what wasteful humanity produces.

 

For having the inclination to make this thread, I'd say I'm more of a scientist than you.

 

Thank God we have moderators here to stop me insulting the obviously very kind and civil member base...

 

Maybe you could ask people to address the points I make instead of throwing insults or nitpicking a single debatable point out of many.

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep

[/backslash/]

The points you have made make no sense. Therefore, it is very difficult to respond to them. Could you be more clear, perhaps, and use references like you're supposed to?

[s1eep]

The points you have made make no sense. Therefore, it is very difficult to respond to them. Could you be more clear, perhaps, and use references like you're supposed to?

I am someone who is always learning...

 

As I said before to you, now I am wiser since I have had time to think about the original post.

 

I don't need to make any more points, if you don't understand, that's your weakness not mine, and why should I try to help you understand, so you can express your weaknesses again? Drag us both down? Further and further into the billions of individual words and statements which make the huge abstraction that is what, the majority of, scientists believe in, and are asking us to follow. It's impossible to make sense out of the copious amount of doctrine, and when you remember all the words said by scientists of today, it's not fond memories, all this "I don't understand", "You are a crackpot", "You are just chemical reactions". This just leaves us confused---the imagination you project is an ego-based "abstraction", that is impossible to rationalize with as the theory of everything (lots of theories put together to create one cohesive whole apparently), it doesn't work I'm afraid, you'll always revert back to the wordless things found through natural observation to 'make sense' out of living.

 

Your projected imagination causes depression, anxiety, etc, because it's unwelcoming to opposite thoughts. The 'crackpot' with his head down who's still on the forums, is often saddened and tired because of your projected imagination.

 

Children, are tired, becoming anxious when out and about or in their homes, because modern word and not imagery-based science is not possible to work out, the word they were educated to speak, and think, is forcing them to notice and feel the effects of the opposite side to their beliefs (i.e. hate).

 

You don't think I notice myself thinking about all the imperfect things encircling my argument, that I thought about when I devised a certain theory, after I have encountered debate, you know, the opposing side to my beliefs.

 

And my use of the word modern scientist in a negative way, is equal to scientists use of the word 'crackpot', so, please accept this formalized and precise, lesser-categorization, or I'll take a risk in admitting, it's can also be seen as an insult. This is not an attack on science, this is critique of modern scientists.

Edited October 5, 2014 by s1eep

[MigL]

And I thought I was getting old and cynical...

Some of you guys need to do some drugs and be a little happier.

[Ophiolite]

As I said before to you, now I am wiser since I have had time to think about the original post.

It would be sensible, productive and polite to think fully of the implications of any post before you make it. Something to consider for your future actions on the forum.

 

 

I don't need to make any more points, if you don't understand, that's your weakness not mine, and why should I try to help you understand, so you can express your weaknesses again? Drag us both down?

It is very much your responsibility to make yourself understood. Others have commented on the lack of cohesiveness and clarity in your posts. Each of you posts is a challenge to understand because of the rambling, incoherent style you have adopted. You would get a better reception if you worked on your writing skills.

 

And to repeat, if several people find you difficult to understand this is your weakness not ours.

 

 

Further and further into the billions of individual words and statements which make the huge abstraction that is what, the majority of, scientists believe in, and are asking us to follow. It's impossible to make sense out of the copious amount of doctrine, and when you remember all the words said by scientists of today, it's not fond memories, all this "I don't understand", "You are a crackpot", "You are just chemical reactions". This just leaves us confused---the imagination you project is an ego-based "abstraction", that is impossible to rationalize with as the theory of everything (lots of theories put together to create one cohesive whole apparently), it doesn't work I'm afraid, you'll always revert back to the wordless things found through natural observation to 'make sense' out of living.

This is a caricature of a strawman version of science and scientists. Thus your argument fails on the absence of sound logic.

 

The rest of your post is close to unintelligible.