|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,642
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it?
#28182427 - 02/11/23 01:57 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
in the 21st century, society has come to the point where they have allowed the scientific endeavor to operate under the premise that if a scientist can do something, he or she should be able to do that thing.
do humans think the role of science is to become G-d?
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28182460 - 02/11/23 02:13 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Science is a natural emergence from the natural world and anything it "does" is also naturally occurring.
There is not and never has been a static nature. Nature has always been changing.
I think the changes should represent compassionate values first and foremost. But that's just my bent. Let change lead to healthy and happy people
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: Kickle]
#28182471 - 02/11/23 02:20 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
For most scientists It's a job
No particular moral compunction
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28182519 - 02/11/23 02:56 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
One can do a job in so many ways. Working with a purpose is better than working without IME
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,642
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28182526 - 02/11/23 03:00 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
why is there not a hippocratic oath for scientists or science? should science and scientists have a declaration of appropriate behaviour and guidance, like a code of ethics?
science has radically changed culture, society, nature, biology, the whole world. science and scientists act as if the practice and practitioners of “science” are an all powerful entity, free of moral constraints.
the ethics of scientism has all too often been twisted to seek to replace the role of G-d in society.
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,642
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: Kickle]
#28182532 - 02/11/23 03:02 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
pandora opened a jar left in her care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world.
in the absence of clear accepted boundaries between the possible and the ethical, once pandora’s box has been opened, it becomes impossible to reverse the consequences.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28182539 - 02/11/23 03:04 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Well bias is often a detriment to study because people "fudge" results, or, like in a courtroom, lead the witness. But a bias against bias is encouraged. That's a valuable trait IMO. We don't want all our silly prejudices in science.
But using/applying findings is always biased. That's where compassion enters in IMO. There is no way to apply understanding without involving some sort of judgement call.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,642
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: Kickle]
#28182546 - 02/11/23 03:07 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
i don't think compassion is innate when the underlying system is fueld by money and power.
take away all money and power, and then compassion has the potential to become the main driver.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28182553 - 02/11/23 03:14 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
I have money and power but still can manage compassion as a primary focus. Why wouldn't I be able to?
Money and power serve compassion when compassion is the motivator.
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,642
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: Kickle]
#28182579 - 02/11/23 03:36 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
for you as an individual, sure.
but compassion is not the driver of this world on a collective level.
prior to the advent of modern techno-industrialized society, humans possessed a collective consciousness developed by nature.
the collective consciousness being created by science and technology differs. it is being bound to a satanic collectivist system.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28182603 - 02/11/23 03:47 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Are the people you interact with in your life generally good?
Or are they generally trying to pull a fast one on you? Are they generally working to harm you?
If it's the last two I think it makes sense to generalize that at large this is happening too. If it's the first, maybe it bears questioning this larger view of evil and where it stems from.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,642
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: Kickle]
#28182648 - 02/11/23 04:10 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
i am connected to every single individual on this planet, as are you.
if you had no shirt, and needed a shirt, and asked every single person in this world if you could have their shirt, what percentage of the population wld give you their shirt?
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod] 3
#28182673 - 02/11/23 04:21 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
This is a very interesting subject. On the one hand, one has to suppose that if something can be found out, it ought to be, if for no other reason than that we can understand it theoretically. But on the other, science has developed some very dangerous technologies.
One good example is that of nuclear weapons. From about 1946-1952, the development of the hydrogen bomb, which at the time was known as "The Super," was the subject of an intense debate. Most scientists were horrified by the prospect, and many refused to participate, generally citing that fission weapons were bad enough, and we didn't need the much deadlier fusion weapons.
Many very respectable scientists, however, went full steam ahead on the Super project. The logic was simple: Would we rather have Stalin build one first, or should we be the first to get there? This was a no-brainer for a lot of people, and of course the development of the hydrogen bomb was accelerated and the first successful test was in 1952, with a yield of 10.4 megatons equivalent in TNT.
There is also, as I say, the argument that, well, fusion explosions constitute basic physics, and oughtn't we do our best to learn these principles? It's a very tricky debate.
Personally, I think nuclear weapons are beyond deplorable, that they were probably inevitable, and that scientists who worked on them, however one rationalizes it, have blood on their hands. But as you can see, it's a very subtle thing. Very much not black and white, really.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 6 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod] 1
#28182675 - 02/11/23 04:22 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
I dunno. What percentage has a shirt to give in that moment without then becoming shirtless themselves?
I'm of the opinion that people are generally good. The people I come across are most of the time honest, caring, and want to be healthy and happy and surrounded by others who are also healthy and happy. This doesn't mean they are perfectly honest or perfectly caring. Or that they can manage to arrive at the desired outcome of happy and healthy.
This also doesn't mean they are perfectly wise and always know the best way to care or pursue health and happiness. I fall into this category, I think.
But I don't fault them (or me) for not being perfect. And so I have a hard time faulting the world that emerges from imperfect beings for being imperfect.
Do I think it can improve? Yes. And compassion is my guess for the best way forward.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,555
Loc: Utah
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28182857 - 02/11/23 06:51 PM (11 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Yes. Nature isn't intelligent. We are. Even the dumbest person is on earth is still smarter than something that has no intelligence at all.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 13 hours
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: nooneman]
#28184797 - 02/13/23 12:50 AM (11 months, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Or should we say its human nature to explore, discover, and use tools..?
|
Lithop
Spaghetti Days



Registered: 04/09/22
Posts: 764
Loc: 🛸
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod] 1
#28184947 - 02/13/23 03:19 AM (11 months, 8 days ago) |
|
|
I think an important aspect is consider "matured" vs "advanced". Someone can have "advanced" knowledge without the "maturity" to be able to apply it in an appropriate way. Think the difference between book-smarts and street-smarts Cheers!
Edited by Lithop (02/13/23 03:46 AM)
|
sonson
Monkey King


Registered: 01/01/23
Posts: 185
Loc: Asia or Oceania
Last seen: 41 minutes, 1 second
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: Lithop]
#28184963 - 02/13/23 04:08 AM (11 months, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Science does not do anything by itself. It has no good and evil in it. Humans use it for all different kind of things.
The climate change is already done, for example.
I bet humans will make a big change to ourselves using science because it is much easy to change human brain than changing nature.
--------------------
🅃 🄴 🄰 🄼 🄲 🄻 🄸 🄽 🄶 🅆 🅁 🄰 🄿
|
Lucis
Nutritional Yeast

Registered: 03/28/15
Posts: 15,622
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28186451 - 02/13/23 11:41 PM (11 months, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Scientism can be dangerous, sure.
Humans playing Gods has had numerous negative impacts on the world, I wonder what is happening with CRISPR.
Gene editing could be dangerous if done wrong.
-------------------- ©️
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,797
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28186649 - 02/14/23 03:21 AM (11 months, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: in the 21st century, society has come to the point where they have allowed the scientific endeavor to operate under the premise that if a scientist can do something, he or she should be able to do that thing.
do humans think the role of science is to become G-d?
If it can safely yeah, there are a lot more rigorous regulations and safety protocols nowadays relative to a few decades ago.
But still room for improvement.
Someone times once the genie is out of the bottle it can't go back. I guess like with CRISPR, if it was commercially available some chump could make a diseases etc.
Chat GPT could wipe a lot of jobs by making certain tasks obsolete and future developments could clear more roles.
Predicted the effect of inventions seems a reasonable thing to try and plan for, but a complex intention indeed.
The tough balance with things like gene editing are the potential benefits of research too, and chat GPT for educated assistance.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|