|
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, 5 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, 5 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, 5 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, 5 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, 5 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, 5 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: 40 minutes, 49 seconds
|
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.
|
SyntheticDreamer
Anonymous


Registered: 02/16/23
Posts: 15
Loc: Some non-extradition country
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: sudly] 1
#28189725 - 02/16/23 03:43 AM (11 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Science should be used for the betterment and preservation of all living things. Humankind however, in a summative sense, is one big selfish dirty machine that is slowly but surely destroying the biosphere. Nature, its own unique way will eventually work out a solution to it. It is inevitable.
-------------------- ║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█║▌║█║▌│║▌║▌█
Don't live one life. Live many lives.
  0% [█ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █] 100%
Edited by SyntheticDreamer (02/16/23 03:44 AM)
|
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: SyntheticDreamer]
#28189738 - 02/16/23 04:20 AM (11 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Well reap what we sow, but I do believe regulation by elected officials and legislations is what leads a lot of the poor decisions made from scientific endeavour.
A lot of problems wouldn't happen if regulations were upheld and enforced instead of removed.
The whole train chemical fire in Oregon issue appears to be related to negligence of maintanence and insufficient crew due to company policy changes aimed at saving money at the cost of safety.
Removing pollution standards and gutting the EPA are not helpful to the environment in the long run and they enable environmentally damaging activity.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
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: sudly]
#28189758 - 02/16/23 05:05 AM (11 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Science should be perfectly open minded..
Drugs should be available for study at all times.
|
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: thealienthatategod]
#28189780 - 02/16/23 05:51 AM (11 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
ideas are powerful, not all are scientific, how old does it have to be to be considered mature?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
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]
#28238367 - 03/20/23 05:48 PM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
older than time itself!
|
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: thealienthatategod]
#28238547 - 03/20/23 07:26 PM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
then let immature ideas be your legacy
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
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]
#28238701 - 03/20/23 08:26 PM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
how do you measure age?
|
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: thealienthatategod]
#28238823 - 03/20/23 09:08 PM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: how do you measure age?
Based on data?
|
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: thealienthatategod]
#28239170 - 03/21/23 06:29 AM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
years you zoo ally
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: SyntheticDreamer] 3
#28239316 - 03/21/23 08:58 AM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Humankind however, in a summative sense, is one big selfish dirty machine
I dunno about that. We seem relatively clean and generous. What are we comparing to?
Belated welcome to the forum SyntheticDreamer!
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod] 1
#28239383 - 03/21/23 09:57 AM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: 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?
Please correct me, but your posts here read like you are concerned about the design/engineering/implementation of technologies rather than science, which is oriented around discovery and clarification of our understanding.
I don't mean to split hairs about it, and indeed the hairs are braided historically, but it raises the question of where the process of creating dangerous things might be interrupted. Do we refrain from curiosity? From innovation? Does the responsibility of gatekeeping fall to research ethics boards at universities? Scientific journals? Government allocation of resources? Venture capitalists? Do we need punitive laws for tinkering with pandora's box?
The process by which professions carve out space to self-regulate and establish ethics is interesting to me. There are already a bunch of codes of ethics in place for different professions and organizations. A strong enough professional body does seem to limit the ambition of individual organizations if the identities of the individuals involved abide more with the profession than the organization.
I think that as long as we associate with fundamentally opposed nations/cultures/organizations such that there are threats at the gates, it will be hard to put the reins on destructive advancement. A broad sense of responsibility seems to be deferred while we are fighting for survival.
|
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: DisoRDeR]
#28239385 - 03/21/23 09:58 AM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
some of us are very busy and good others make no effort - they do pick low hanging fruit and never clean up after themselves (they are living in a post apocalyptic movie of themselves).
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
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: DisoRDeR]
#28239636 - 03/21/23 01:34 PM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
scientific endeavors designed to describe the amazingly intricate complexity of the physical world, and to define and describe the truth therein, are essential to comprehending and interacting with that world in a responsible manner.
scientific endeavors seeking to enable modification of man and the natural world, to enable a transhuman fourth industrial revolution where man and machine become one, where man assumes control of his own evolution via synthetic means, where biologigy is radically changed, these types of activities must have guardrails.
man must decide if he wants to live with or without the existance of a non-human moral objective standard, this will determine the general purpose of human life as a whole. these guardrails have the potential to serve and remind man that he is not G-d.
|
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]
#28239642 - 03/21/23 01:35 PM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: years you zoo ally
if you ran the zoo!
|
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: BrendanFlock]
#28239654 - 03/21/23 01:42 PM (10 months, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said:
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: how do you measure age?
Based on data?
rigid flexibility lies within a narrow band that must be critically balanced.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 5 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28239748 - 03/21/23 02:33 PM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Bend don't break? Why?
-------------------- 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]
#28239888 - 03/21/23 03:43 PM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
bending requires an accurate perception of the inner movement of a web of phenomena. in being attuned to this unfolding bending dynamic, there is a tension btwn that which is tacitly recognized as no longer useful, and that which continues to be accepted as profound.
either a gradual transformation - a rebalancing must take place, or radical transformation will occur. a radical transformation is a separation, a breaking, where existence as it is known ceases.
bending is a transformation process, however sometimes in order to transform this bending, it is necessary to first break.
sometimes, in order to exist, it is first necessary to cease to exist.
|
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: thealienthatategod]
#28239984 - 03/21/23 04:44 PM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
you mean the body? the mind is bent instantaneously at the speed of thought (1/10th of a second to bend) the body however can get stiff, especially while sitting. or
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 5 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28239986 - 03/21/23 04:44 PM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I like the heart sutra because it emphasizes the way that one of the deepest connections there is, exists in an unbelievably flexible way. And it is in perfect balance, sometimes we just don't recognize it.
-------------------- 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]
#28240023 - 03/21/23 05:04 PM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
"Form is emptiness (śūnyatā), emptiness is form." now you are invoking the deeepest reflection upon mind
It is a thing I understand from time to time, while at other times I am not in position to recognize it.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 5 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28240169 - 03/21/23 06:39 PM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: thealienthatategod]
#28240391 - 03/21/23 08:16 PM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: scientific endeavors designed to describe the amazingly intricate complexity of the physical world, and to define and describe the truth therein, are essential to comprehending and interacting with that world in a responsible manner.
scientific endeavors seeking to enable modification of man and the natural world, to enable a transhuman fourth industrial revolution where man and machine become one, where man assumes control of his own evolution via synthetic means, where biologigy is radically changed, these types of activities must have guardrails.
Maybe we need to weather the impacts of our experimentation and get a good look at the outcomes a few times before we can find the collective motivation to put limits on our individual efforts broadly. Historical and observational research regarding the impacts of our actions seems like a natural thing for some humans to do.
Quote:
man must decide if he wants to live with or without the existance of a non-human moral objective standard, this will determine the general purpose of human life as a whole. these guardrails have the potential to serve and remind man that he is not G-d
There is a lot to unpack in this statement. I'm curious about what a non-human moral objective standard is and how we might come to collective agreement on it. I'm also doubtful about abstracting a purpose of human life as a whole, but it sounds like fun. What could go 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]
#28240690 - 03/22/23 12:51 AM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I think that if science has the technology to do so they should, mitigating risks and hazards is also a quintessential part of that.
This said, predictions are not impervious to mistake and I acknowledge that.
I'm not sure yet how to describe the benefit of taking such risks, but I think it is easier to judge with context of the particular situations involved.
Take pacemakers, hearing aids or titanium hip replacements for example, they're technically a fusion of man and technology and from what I gather the development and implementation of this technology in particular, was overall beneficial.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,229
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: Kickle]
#28241001 - 03/22/23 09:44 AM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quantifying the word seems necessary since nature can be taken to mean everything including humans and the actions and results of humans which makes the word pointless. One must suppose there is a point in it's usage. It may vary slightly from use to use but it generally indicates that which forms without the work of humans.
That being said, I think the fair meaning should be a little foggy. If science is the process by which a human might observe the material world, describe specific phenomena (a river for instance), postulate correlating attributes and forces (inclination and downward force/gravity) that dictate the phenomena, we have the basics of science that can be used to conduct experiments.
Seeing that the water is flowing through a constricted area we might constrict it further and notice the water rise. A group of beavers might produce the same result and yet it's considered totally natural.
I bring this up because it suggests humans have been using science to change nature for a very long time so I suppose you have a more specific use in mind.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
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: Kickle]
#28241016 - 03/22/23 09:57 AM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: Bend don't break? Why?
That's actually a family motto of mine.
Cassidy..
Bend don't break.
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: redgreenvines] 2
#28241466 - 03/22/23 01:57 PM (10 months, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: some of us are very busy and good others make no effort - they do pick low hanging fruit and never clean up after themselves (they are living in a post apocalyptic movie of themselves).
Another day, another snowfall. I'm better at keeping the driveway clear than the bedroom floor. Hosting others is often what it takes to get my scrub on.
It is interesting to see where we are motivated to effort. I'm not sure which efforts should be encouraged, nor which should be contained, thought it's probably worth taking a good look at our vicinity.
Low hanging fruit leaves more time for movement in other directions. Maybe we risk bending our trees so low they break, or we cease to take our tall shape to reach them. Maybe they aren't our trees, to tie this branch back to the OP.
|
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: DisoRDeR]
#28241589 - 03/22/23 03:40 PM (10 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
good answer mr. tree
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
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: DisoRDeR]
#28249856 - 03/27/23 07:24 PM (9 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
a non-human moral objective standard means a reality where G-d exists!
what is the purpose of life without G-d?
|
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: DisoRDeR]
#28249867 - 03/27/23 07:31 PM (9 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
how much longer do humans need to experiment and do observational research?
to what end?
where is the finish line?
|
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]
#28250287 - 03/28/23 01:20 AM (9 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Sometimes it's an effort not to do something haha.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
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: thealienthatategod] 1
#28250330 - 03/28/23 03:18 AM (9 months, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: how much longer do humans need to experiment and do observational research?
to what end?
where is the finish line?
there is no finish line, each planet we visit is a new Pandora's box we each, not just the scientists, must always keep learning, which means facing uncertainty.
or if everything is just a repeat of everything else that is already known (by staying inside some conceptual fencing), then we still discover new problems within the fragments and factors of even the most traditional understandings.
This is partly because everything is impermanent, changing, shifting, even the solid marbles change, steel rusts, glass breaks, and we are back to working with dust.
But also it is our nature, to stop noticing what does not change, and to only notice what stands out from the unchanging background.
So what do you think?
The trouble with proselytism, for those who have found god and now feel they must spread the love, is that people (whom they claim to love (unconditionally)) become the new obstacles, and the new unknowns emerge from the minds you wish to change to benefit from your insights.
Then you must begin your own observational research, on those people but also on yourself, since there is no better way to understand people than to understand yourself.
There is a saying about entering heaven and the eyes of a child, and it is not about pretending to be innocent.
It is about being fresh, playful, non-judgemental, and inquisitive.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
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] 1
#28261126 - 04/03/23 07:47 PM (9 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
i do not need your mind to change to benefit my insights! every individual has a choice on how they choose to perceive things! collectively, these perceptions are reflected in the world! G-d will not violate free will! a gift that allows every individual to make a connection!
human existence is impermanent! G-d is not impermanent! do you wish to be an ouroboros? that is the uncertainty that you are playing with!
a child is absent of filters, authentic and vulnerable! through this authentic and vulnerable lens, laking of filters, there is an ability to perceive the world in a way where mortality can be left behind!
|
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: thealienthatategod] 1
#28261142 - 04/03/23 07:57 PM (9 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
this is what the transhumanists are seeking to achieve artifically!
|
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: thealienthatategod]
#28261485 - 04/04/23 03:56 AM (9 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
ok then
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
RJ Tubs 202



Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 6,010
Loc: USA
Last seen: 1 day, 6 hours
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#28261606 - 04/04/23 07:04 AM (9 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
The trouble with proselytism, for those who have found god and now feel they must spread the love, is that people (whom they claim to love (unconditionally)) become the new obstacles, and the new unknowns emerge from the minds you wish to change to benefit from your insights.
Would you agree these days the amount of religious proselytism is tiny (microscopic?) compared the proselytism of the social justice movement? People talk about giving black people money for slavery reparations with the same tone as passionate religious fervor. I'm constantly being told I must believe in their way of thinking, and if I don't, I'm an enemy - AKA obstacle.
|
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: RJ Tubs 202]
#28261623 - 04/04/23 07:17 AM (9 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
In the midst of it are some flickerings of good ideas, some apparently selfless motivations, and for the most part a sense of belonging to a team of holier than thou bible thumpers with a slightly different set of commandments, and a smaller bible.
Blunt instruments all of them.
Keep your corner clear and if the Gestapo comes to your door, you know nothing, alright?
let the angel of death pass.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
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: redgreenvines]
#28262249 - 04/04/23 03:04 PM (9 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Sweet emotion..?
|
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]
#28262542 - 04/04/23 06:21 PM (9 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
when an idea is removed from society it creates a vacuum. when G-d is removed from the world, something else will fill the vacuum.
take the american flag out of the classroom, and the pride flag will fill that. take G-d out of the classroom, and some idol will fill that. take Christianity (for example) out of the classroom, which says that man is a composite of body and soul and the soul is a substantial form of the body, and transgenderism is going to fill that vacuum, which says that man is is a duality between body and soul and the soul and the body don't have any real relation to one another and they can be in opposition!
at this point, putting the genie back into the bottle is unlikely!
|
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: BrendanFlock]
#28262547 - 04/04/23 06:24 PM (9 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said:
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: how do you measure age?
Based on data?
Human Aging Is the End-Product of Our Developmental Program
Quote:
Summary: A new study reports aging may not be a result of accumulative damage to the body, but instead is the result of “design” flaws in our DNA that orchestrates the development of single cells into an adult organism.
Source: University of Birmingham
A new study published in Genome Biology has challenged the traditional view that aging is a result of the accumulation of damage to the body’s hardware, such as the molecular damage to cells caused by oxidative stress.
Instead, the study suggests that aging is primarily a result of design flaws in the software of our bodies—the DNA code that orchestrates the development of a single cell into an adult organism.
The study considers the question, why does aging happen uniformly when current models work on the assumption that we accumulate “damage” randomly? If we imagine human development as the product of a sort of computer program encoded in the DNA, the paper suggests that aging is not an accumulation of damage to the hardware, but a process driven by flaws in the software, a radical departure from damage-based theories that until now have prevailed in aging research.
The study’s authors propose a model of aging as the outcome of the developmental software program and reflected in shifting cellular information states throughout the life course. The model explains why closely related species age at radically different rates, and it explains the major genetic, dietary, and pharmacological manipulations of aging in animals.
...
|
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: thealienthatategod]
#28262632 - 04/04/23 07:03 PM (9 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: when an idea is removed from society it creates a vacuum. when G-d is removed from the world, something else will fill the vacuum.
take the american flag out of the classroom, and the pride flag will fill that. take G-d out of the classroom, and some idol will fill that. take Christianity (for example) out of the classroom, which says that man is a composite of body and soul and the soul is a substantial form of the body, and transgenderism is going to fill that vacuum, which says that man is is a duality between body and soul and the soul and the body don't have any real relation to one another and they can be in opposition!
at this point, putting the genie back into the bottle is unlikely!
you are looking at it as defending your territory. you feel insecure I am sorry you feel that your stuff is threatened.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
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]
#28263531 - 04/05/23 11:49 AM (9 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
the cultural reality is that G-d is receding in importance to ppl. money is growing in importance to ppl.
the gaposis in values between younger people and older generations means that what is central to the lives of ppl has dramatically shifted. values that have universally defined people are being abandoned. the values can manifest themseves in different way across cultures, but the basic principals and fundamentals are the same. priorities and beliefs that are deeply rooted in the human soul are being scoffed at. this has been engineered, it is not an inevitable conclusion of the passage of time! the roots have been torn away, and all that is left is a hole!
the core human values that bind people and civilizations together are what ensures a continued flourishing! a population of people is being cultivated which value their own comfort and the satisfaction of their own immediate desires above all else!
what do you value that is beyond yourself?
|
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: thealienthatategod]
#28263548 - 04/05/23 11:55 AM (9 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
money and god are both receding from our cognospheres, while entertainment, social media, merch, and gaming are on the ascendant.
money is just another word for god and power.
honesty and contemplation are valuable to me and being able to modestly satisfy my animal needs with dignity.
see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_religious_organizations Note: the Vatican does not expose it's weath which is probably well more than a trillion $
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
Edited by redgreenvines (04/05/23 12:00 PM)
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,851
Last seen: 1 hour, 5 minutes
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#28263566 - 04/05/23 12:06 PM (9 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
The Dalai Lama likes to point to a story of meeting the (former) Queen of England. She was his elder and more worldly. So he wanted to know her opinion.
He asked simply: in your estimation is humanity getting better?
Her response with no hesitation was, Yes! After living through nearly the entire 20th century, traversing the globe, she saw people engaging in ways she never dreamt possible. Accepting things she never thought they'd accept. And so for her she definitely saw humanity as getting better.
I think about that sometimes in relation to being raveled up in a limited slice of worldview.
-------------------- 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]
#28263587 - 04/05/23 12:22 PM (9 months, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: The Dalai Lama likes to point to a story of meeting the (former) Queen of England. She was his elder and more worldly. So he wanted to know her opinion.
He asked simply: in your estimation is humanity getting better?
Her response with no hesitation was, Yes! After living through nearly the entire 20th century, traversing the globe, she saw people engaging in ways she never dreamt possible. Accepting things she never thought they'd accept. And so for her she definitely saw humanity as getting better.
I think about that sometimes in relation to being raveled up in a limited slice of worldview.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Ferdinando


Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,664
|
Re: if science has “matured” to the point where it “can” change nature, should it? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28264596 - 04/06/23 04:28 AM (9 months, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
Quote:
Kickle said: The Dalai Lama likes to point to a story of meeting the (former) Queen of England. She was his elder and more worldly. So he wanted to know her opinion.
He asked simply: in your estimation is humanity getting better?
Her response with no hesitation was, Yes! After living through nearly the entire 20th century, traversing the globe, she saw people engaging in ways she never dreamt possible. Accepting things she never thought they'd accept. And so for her she definitely saw humanity as getting better.
I think about that sometimes in relation to being raveled up in a limited slice of worldview.

I am really happy with that I also think humanity i getting better there are so many good people like lotsang panta and redgreenvines and I who are pulling strings not that long to go to an ok earth where we have it ok maybe in two years there might be no limit to it maybe it will go on forever it will get better now and then we will have a crisis maybe but if we all do our best it will get much better fast for as long as possible
-------------------- with our love with our love we could save the world
Edited by Ferdinando (04/06/23 04:30 AM)
|
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: Ferdinando]
#28264647 - 04/06/23 06:08 AM (9 months, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Am I like lotsang panta? who is lotsang? well, let's do our best to keep the floors clean.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
|