OS linked it earlier.

I have to go back through all that? Ugh

ETA ah see. Didn't take much to show that the OP was full of shit, did it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Do you know what a world totally devoid of science would actually look like

Yeah. There would be no guns, knives, or nooses to shoot, behead, or hang the evildoers.

You'd still have rocks to bash their heads in, whenever they send thunderstorms to harass your goats.

felltoearth wrote:

aban57 wrote:

UltimoReducto wrote: A recent survey about the 75% lesbian obesity rate cost 8 figures. You could give every lesbian on the planet a gym membership for that price.

How would you know this is a good solution if you don't study the subject first ?

I would like a citation for the study. I'm calling BS.

Well there's this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... 7cc3f056ef


Last time I attended a math class $3000000 was a 7 figure number.
So...about one percent of the worlds 3.5 billion women are gay? Probably a conservative estimate but lets go with it. About 35 million.

3 million dollars divided by 35 millon...
So you can buy a gym membership for around 8 cents eh?

Yeah, y'know what? I don't think letting this guy make decisions about science budgets is a particularly bright idea.

BlackBart wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

aban57 wrote:

UltimoReducto wrote: A recent survey about the 75% lesbian obesity rate cost 8 figures. You could give every lesbian on the planet a gym membership for that price.

How would you know this is a good solution if you don't study the subject first ?

I would like a citation for the study. I'm calling BS.

Well there's this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fed ... 7cc3f056ef


Last time I attended a math class $3000000 was a 7 figure number.
So...about one percent of the worlds 3.5 billion women are gay? Probably a conservative estimate but lets go with it. About 35 million.

3 million dollars divided by 35 millon...
So you can buy a gym membership for around 8 cents eh?

Yeah, y'know what? I don't think letting this guy make decisions about science budgets is a particularly bright idea.

ETA. OS linked to it earlier.

Rumraket wrote:

UltimoReducto wrote: But if we want more science, we can certainly have it, by making science cheaper.

How?

How about a science sale? 50% off all science.

5 quid is all my experiment is costing me.

Just need cheaper researchers.

Surely science is expansive but I dont believe someone deliberately doing that. First of all today any scientific theory, discovery has challenge right away all over the world, computers speeding up.

There is no meaning of saying there are hungry kids somewhere over the world, there always was and will be. But with the advance of technology, transportation and globalization health care, nutrition and home electronics became far more cheaper than 2 or 3 decades before.

As science advance life quality is increasing too.

Cosmology is perhaps one of the most expansive sciences out there.

LucidFlight wrote:Cosmology is perhaps one of the most expansive sciences out there.

'Humanity' arose and flourished before science, unless you want to argue that every innovative thought is scientific progress, but that would be daft. Even our conception of 'God' has evolved in spite of science. I mean, monotheism was pretty much global long before science turned up. And though science does undermine certain tenets of certain monotheistic beliefs, it does not (and cannot ever) wholly undermine the potential for 'a God'. It only undermines silly ideas about God.

Notwithstanding questions pertaining to our ontology, one could cite many examples questioning the 'good' of science. Global warming, nuclear catastrophe, weakened immune systems, etc. etc.. No doubt that there are benefits, such as being able to phone yer mum when you're on holiday, and having a microwave so you get home from work and can get to the pub in short order. But I'm genuinely left wondering how shallow and short-sighted these 'qualities' are in the grand scheme of things, even if that scheme ponders naught but the longevity of our species.

Though the OP questions the expense of science, what he really means to ask is whether the expense is (or has been) justified. Sat in my home, right now, with the heating on and with a computer enabling me to express my opinion, I'd say yes. But then, how selfish and short-sighted would that conclusion be?

jamest wrote:'Humanity' arose and flourished before science, unless you want to argue that every innovative thought is scientific progress, but that would be daft. Even our conception of 'God' has evolved in spite of science. I mean, monotheism was pretty much global long before science turned up. And though science does undermine certain tenets of certain monotheistic beliefs, it does not (and cannot ever) wholly undermine the potential for 'a God'. It only undermines silly ideas about God.

Notwithstanding questions pertaining to our ontology, one could cite many examples questioning the 'good' of science. Global warming, nuclear catastrophe, weakened immune systems, etc. etc.. No doubt that there are benefits, such as being able to phone yer mum when you're on holiday, and having a microwave so you get home from work and can get to the pub in short order. But I'm genuinely left wondering how shallow and short-sighted these 'qualities' are in the grand scheme of things, even if that scheme ponders naught but the longevity of our species.

Though the OP questions the expense of science, what he really means to ask is whether the expense is (or has been) justified. Sat in my home, right now, with the heating on and with a computer enabling me to express my opinion, I'd say yes. But then, how selfish and short-sighted would that conclusion be?

Material comforts or labour saving conveniences may seem trivial to you, and perhaps they are. But ask the mother of a child whose life has been saved by modern medicine and the science behind it may not seem so trivial.

jamest wrote:
Though the OP questions the expense of science, what he really means to ask is whether the expense is (or has been) justified. Sat in my home, right now, with the heating on and with a computer enabling me to express my opinion, I'd say yes. But then, how selfish and short-sighted would that conclusion be?

It certainly answers the question in a sensible way. In regards to the big picture, one could definitely make the case that the dominance of humanity on Earth is a bad thing. But in terms of the big picture of what good science has done, one only needs to compare ourselves now and then, particularly before and after whatever you consider to be the true scientific era. You might prefer living in a cave dying of malnutrition and disease, but I'm pretty sure most everyone else would rather not.

Blackadder wrote:

jamest wrote:'Humanity' arose and flourished before science, unless you want to argue that every innovative thought is scientific progress, but that would be daft. Even our conception of 'God' has evolved in spite of science. I mean, monotheism was pretty much global long before science turned up. And though science does undermine certain tenets of certain monotheistic beliefs, it does not (and cannot ever) wholly undermine the potential for 'a God'. It only undermines silly ideas about God.

Notwithstanding questions pertaining to our ontology, one could cite many examples questioning the 'good' of science. Global warming, nuclear catastrophe, weakened immune systems, etc. etc.. No doubt that there are benefits, such as being able to phone yer mum when you're on holiday, and having a microwave so you get home from work and can get to the pub in short order. But I'm genuinely left wondering how shallow and short-sighted these 'qualities' are in the grand scheme of things, even if that scheme ponders naught but the longevity of our species.

Though the OP questions the expense of science, what he really means to ask is whether the expense is (or has been) justified. Sat in my home, right now, with the heating on and with a computer enabling me to express my opinion, I'd say yes. But then, how selfish and short-sighted would that conclusion be?

Material comforts or labour saving conveniences may seem trivial to you, and perhaps they are. But ask the mother of a child whose life has been saved by modern medicine and the science behind it may not seem so trivial.

Material comforts/etc. are not to be scoffed at, but the bottom-line still is whether science is short-sighted since it appears solely to appeal to the selfish.

We're all sat here in fear. Fear of destroying the planet/ourselves precisely because of scientific advancements. I mean, our last remaining hope (seemingly) is that science can get us to Mars before we do that. And then what, if we succeed? That our scientists will unveil a way of escaping Mars before we destroy that planet?

Seriously, people, wake the fuck up. Science is directly responsible for us needing to consider the questions posed previous. Deal with that in a manner which transcends your own personal comforts, before it's too late.

jamest wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

jamest wrote:'Humanity' arose and flourished before science, unless you want to argue that every innovative thought is scientific progress, but that would be daft. Even our conception of 'God' has evolved in spite of science. I mean, monotheism was pretty much global long before science turned up. And though science does undermine certain tenets of certain monotheistic beliefs, it does not (and cannot ever) wholly undermine the potential for 'a God'. It only undermines silly ideas about God.

Notwithstanding questions pertaining to our ontology, one could cite many examples questioning the 'good' of science. Global warming, nuclear catastrophe, weakened immune systems, etc. etc.. No doubt that there are benefits, such as being able to phone yer mum when you're on holiday, and having a microwave so you get home from work and can get to the pub in short order. But I'm genuinely left wondering how shallow and short-sighted these 'qualities' are in the grand scheme of things, even if that scheme ponders naught but the longevity of our species.

Though the OP questions the expense of science, what he really means to ask is whether the expense is (or has been) justified. Sat in my home, right now, with the heating on and with a computer enabling me to express my opinion, I'd say yes. But then, how selfish and short-sighted would that conclusion be?

Material comforts or labour saving conveniences may seem trivial to you, and perhaps they are. But ask the mother of a child whose life has been saved by modern medicine and the science behind it may not seem so trivial.

Material comforts/etc. are not to be scoffed at, but the bottom-line still is whether science is short-sighted since it appears solely to appeal to the selfish.

We're all sat here in fear. Fear of destroying the planet/ourselves precisely because of scientific advancements. I mean, our last remaining hope (seemingly) is that science can get us to Mars before we do that. And then what, if we succeed? That our scientists will unveil a way of escaping Mars before we destroy that planet?

Seriously, people, wake the fuck up. Science is directly responsible for us needing to consider the questions posed previous. Deal with that in a manner which transcends your own personal comforts, before it's too late.

I'd love to, but surely you must realize we need science to deal with those problems, in addition to the ones caused by technology. If you feel like dealing with those problems is worse than dying in a cave of disease and starvation that's nice, but you're probably on your own. I think if the dinosaurs had pollution and weapons problems in addition to a giant hurtling asteroid, they'd be glad to have the technology to eliminate the asteroid despite those other problems, because if they used science in a smart way they could have solutions to those other problems as well. Science isn't long sighted or short sighted, selfish or selfless. People are. For all your preaching about transcending, you aren't really looking at this in a very big picture sort of way.

But even if granted, what's your solution?

jamest wrote:
Material comforts/etc. are not to be scoffed at, but the bottom-line still is whether science is short-sighted since it appears solely to appeal to the selfish.

We're all sat here in fear. Fear of destroying the planet/ourselves precisely because of scientific advancements. I mean, our last remaining hope (seemingly) is that science can get us to Mars before we do that. And then what, if we succeed? That our scientists will unveil a way of escaping Mars before we destroy that planet?

Seriously, people, wake the fuck up. Science is directly responsible for us needing to consider the questions posed previous. Deal with that in a manner which transcends your own personal comforts, before it's too late.

James
Here I can't help thinking you are confounding science with technology.

Understanding that a tremendous amount of energy can be released during fission or fusion processes is science. Building a bomb or a nuclear reactor out of that understanding is technology.

Now you might argue that the understanding is a proximate cause for the technology. But then the evolutionary trait of curiosity is a proximate cause for the desire for understanding. At least in a physicalist/materialist world

Humans are curious animals. In fact curiosity in an animal is an indicator of intelligence at the species and individual level. Science is the human way to satisfy curiosity in a meaningful way rather than rely on superstition and or less than curious shamans.

The OP mentioned everything competing for scarce resources; something that is true when resources are scarce. But with nearly eight billion humans thriving on this planet scarcity of resources hardly seems to be the problem, and it is science and the technological application of science that has promoted abundance of resources for humans and our ancient ancestors rather than scarcity, going back to Australopithecus.

Innovations are the result of science and as for the first "human" innovation the candidates are only three. Making pointed sticks for killing food animals or digging roots, fracturing rocks into wedges for cutting up scavenged carcasses and or breaking marrow bones, or the making of and controlled use of fire.

Without science humans, if they existed at all, would be relegated to a few 10s of thousands of individuals living precarious lives in isolated pockets of Africa and the middle east.

It's not that we can't afford science. It's that we wouldn't be here without it. Not living the cushy lives we do today.

jamest wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

jamest wrote:'Humanity' arose and flourished before science, unless you want to argue that every innovative thought is scientific progress, but that would be daft. Even our conception of 'God' has evolved in spite of science. I mean, monotheism was pretty much global long before science turned up. And though science does undermine certain tenets of certain monotheistic beliefs, it does not (and cannot ever) wholly undermine the potential for 'a God'. It only undermines silly ideas about God.

Notwithstanding questions pertaining to our ontology, one could cite many examples questioning the 'good' of science. Global warming, nuclear catastrophe, weakened immune systems, etc. etc.. No doubt that there are benefits, such as being able to phone yer mum when you're on holiday, and having a microwave so you get home from work and can get to the pub in short order. But I'm genuinely left wondering how shallow and short-sighted these 'qualities' are in the grand scheme of things, even if that scheme ponders naught but the longevity of our species.

Though the OP questions the expense of science, what he really means to ask is whether the expense is (or has been) justified. Sat in my home, right now, with the heating on and with a computer enabling me to express my opinion, I'd say yes. But then, how selfish and short-sighted would that conclusion be?

Material comforts or labour saving conveniences may seem trivial to you, and perhaps they are. But ask the mother of a child whose life has been saved by modern medicine and the science behind it may not seem so trivial.

Material comforts/etc. are not to be scoffed at, but the bottom-line still is whether science is short-sighted since it appears solely to appeal to the selfish.

We're all sat here in fear. Fear of destroying the planet/ourselves precisely because of scientific advancements. I mean, our last remaining hope (seemingly) is that science can get us to Mars before we do that. And then what, if we succeed? That our scientists will unveil a way of escaping Mars before we destroy that planet?

Seriously, people, wake the fuck up. Science is directly responsible for us needing to consider the questions posed previous. Deal with that in a manner which transcends your own personal comforts, before it's too late.

Hmm? Shall we attempted to list all of the major common causes of death that no longer threaten massive death tolls because of science? Ill start with a rather personal example.

In 1928 , Alexander Fleming studied the anti-bacterial properties of penicillin as concerned staph infections. A long list of scientists followed until in 1957, the year I was born, and John C. Sheehan successfully synthesized penicillin and an injection able compound was developed. In 1960 I developed acute rheumatic fever with my temperature spiking at 104 two to three times a day.

I would have been dead at 3 and 1/2, no doubt about it, if not for that science and those scientists. In the first 18 years of the 20th century at least 60,000,000 people died do to famine and influenza. In the first 18 years of this century less than 750,000.

Don't try to tell me that science isn't important, or that humans flourished before science. It is and we didn't.
It's when science is stifled that humanity suffers, not the other way round.






i