Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Science - Risk vs Benefit


pogi

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, katherine the great said:

Homo non erectus???  Like hairy, big brained ape? It could have happened I guess…

Sadly I think explaining the joke I was going for probably violates board rules. ;) 

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Freedom said:

I disagree. Science is simply the accumulation of knowledge. What will kill us is ignoring the knowledge by acting in a reckless manner. Science does not create pollution in the same way that guns do not create crime. Pollution results from us ignoring the facts accumulated through the scientific method. Science tells me that breathing water will kill me. It would be silly to therefore say that science is why people drown. Science, or knowing that breathing water will kill us, is not causing deaths but rather it prevents death. We know through the scientific method to take special precautions when going out on the water.  

I would not be interested in being transported back to 1100BC before all the wonderful developments that the scientific method has produced. What I am concerned about is the antiscience sentiment that is emerging in our society. A refusal to accept the consequences of pollution, or to get a vaccine to stop a pandemic. It is the rejection of science that causes me to tremble. 

I agree that science itself is not to blame.  Humans are.  Like I said previously, science is amoral.  I also agree that science is our greatest hope and I wish that people would stop being idiots about it.   So, I think people are misunderstanding my  posts here.  
I can see how this may all sound strange coming from me, but I hope people understand that I am not dissing science here - my concern is humans - I don’t trust them with the tools of science.  
If we can’t recognize how science has been recklessly used and how it has the potential to wipe us out, then I think we are doomed.

I am not suggesting that we should do away with science.  That is impossible.  As I said, the genie is out of the bottle and ain’t going back, so we should try to use it for good.  Given the state of affairs and the trajectory of planetary health, I am convinced that we are going to kill ourselves via the tools of science/technology.

We are all too comfortably numb, politically blind, or pleasantly ignorant to care about the current trajectory of our planet. 
Your comment about not being willing to go without the wonderful developments of science is probably how most people feel, which I believe demonstrates my point that we are hosed.  We are unwilling to make sacrifices to change the trajectory of planetary health.  Because with the good comes the bad.  In terms of overall planetary health, we are worse off and getting worse everyday.  This will kick us in the butt eventually.  I don’t see anything changing.  Greed and politics are too powerful.

Sorry to be so pessimistic about all of this and gloomy in my predictions, but I think we are going to kill ourselves and or our planet via the tools of science and technology.  Is science to blame? No.  But it is the tool that will kill us. 

Edited by pogi
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I wonder if humans could be humans without science.  Our brains are wired that way.  The better question might be if there never were humans on earth, would the earth be better off?

 

The earth does not care either way.  In the view of science, the earth went billions of years without man.  What great benefits did the earth get?  Man or not man, the earth will be consumed by the sun, so it’s destiny is sealed.  

Edited by carbon dioxide
Posted
1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

The earth does not care either way.  In the view of science, the earth went billions of years without man.  What great benefits did the earth get?  Man or not man, the earth will be consumed by the sun, so it’s destiny is sealed.  

I don’t know how to define “better” for an inorganic entity. I am not really sure on organic entities. Are my pets better off being my pets or would they be better off in the wild? I don’t know.

If we take the account in the Book of Moses as the actual spirit of the Earth speaking fallen humanity appears to be a kind of disease that pains it constantly. Not sure if it is a sorrow for it happening or some kind of pain sin itself inflicts or some combination or something else.

Only one way to fix the problem.

8370066-6578455-image-a-8_1547153103739.

save-the-planet-kill-yourself-pe4s18c5v9

We had a good run*. I guess we can call it a day.

*We did not, in fact, have a good run.

Oh, I guess there is one other option. We could repent. Any takers? Yeah, I thought not.

 

Posted

Science and religion don’t have to be at odds. Both can be used to answer different questions.  Just as a computer has two different aspects, hardware and software, life has its own hardware and software.  The is the biological body which is the hardware and the spirit which is the software.  Science can offer an explanation for the origin of our biological bodies like evolution.  It is not useful to explain our software.  Why is it that only man advances in any meaningful way.  No other lifeform is like man. 500 years from now, man will be colonizing planets in our solar system.  Apes and othe intelligent forms of life on earth will be doing the exact same things as they have done for the past 10000 years.  Man advances because the software inhabiting the biological body of man is the spirit sons and daughters of God. All other life may have spirits but they are not the sons and daughters of God.  The dinosaurs did the exact same thing the last year of their existence as their first million years.  This is true for every life form that has existed one earth except for one, man.  Science can’t explain it and sorry opposable thumbs does not explain man being able to work complex math equations.

Posted
14 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Science and religion don’t have to be at odds. Both can be used to answer different questions.  Just as a computer has two different aspects, hardware and software, life has its own hardware and software.  The is the biological body which is the hardware and the spirit which is the software.  Science can offer an explanation for the origin of our biological bodies like evolution.  It is not useful to explain our software.  Why is it that only man advances in any meaningful way.  No other lifeform is like man. 500 years from now, man will be colonizing planets in our solar system.  Apes and othe intelligent forms of life on earth will be doing the exact same things as they have done for the past 10000 years.  Man advances because the software inhabiting the biological body of man is the spirit sons and daughters of God. All other life may have spirits but they are not the sons and daughters of God.  The dinosaurs did the exact same thing the last year of their existence as their first million years.  This is true for every life form that has existed one earth except for one, man.  Science can’t explain it and sorry opposable thumbs does not explain man being able to work complex math equations.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The earth does not care either way.  In the view of science, the earth went billions of years without man.  What great benefits did the earth get?  Man or not man, the earth will be consumed by the sun, so it’s destiny is sealed.  

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow the sun will consume us.  

Estimates suggest that life has about 7.5 billion years before the sun will cause the extinction of life on earth.  

Posted
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t know how to define “better” for an inorganic entity. I am not really sure on organic entities. Are my pets better off being my pets or would they be better off in the wild? I don’t know.

If we take the account in the Book of Moses as the actual spirit of the Earth speaking fallen humanity appears to be a kind of disease that pains it constantly. Not sure if it is a sorrow for it happening or some kind of pain sin itself inflicts or some combination or something else.

Only one way to fix the problem.

8370066-6578455-image-a-8_1547153103739.

save-the-planet-kill-yourself-pe4s18c5v9

We had a good run*. I guess we can call it a day.

*We did not, in fact, have a good run.

Oh, I guess there is one other option. We could repent. Any takers? Yeah, I thought not.

 

Ok, I'll do it. Bye bye. 

Posted
19 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Better is no plastic killing endless numbers of animals, less air pollution, fewer toxic chemicals being dumped or leached into our water, no deforestation, etc. 

Maybe. Transportation and packaging of food(includes lots of plastic) has drastically extended human life expectancy around the planet.  That’s good, right?  What you really mean is that we need to learn proper disposal techniques for plastic. I’m old, trust me, we have much less air pollution than 50 years ago. Considering how global and interdependent the world’s economies are what you really mean is arriving at a reasonable amount of pollution, relative to benefits received. Same with pollution into the water. The economies of the West have largely gotten a handle on these problems. 
Deforestation?  What does that even mean?  I live in a wooden house as do millions of others. Wood is a basic construction material around the globe.  You realize the the eastern US is actually reforesting, right?

Sorry for the rant, but knee jerk reactions really bother me. 

Posted
19 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Better is no plastic killing endless numbers of animals, less air pollution, fewer toxic chemicals being dumped or leached into our water, no deforestation, etc. 

Maybe. Transportation and packaging of food(includes lots of plastic) has drastically extended human life expectancy around the planet.  That’s good, right?  What you really mean is that we need to learn proper disposal techniques for plastic. I’m old, trust me, we have much less air pollution than 50 years ago. Considering how global and interdependent the world’s economies are what you really mean is arriving at a reasonable amount of pollution, relative to benefits received. Same with pollution into the water. The economies of the West have largely gotten a handle on these problems. 
Deforestation?  What does that even mean?  I live in a wooden house as do millions of others. Wood is a basic construction material around the globe.  You realize the the eastern US is actually reforesting, right?

Sorry for the rant, but knee jerk reactions really bother me. 

Posted
19 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Better is no plastic killing endless numbers of animals, less air pollution, fewer toxic chemicals being dumped or leached into our water, no deforestation, etc. 

Maybe. Transportation and packaging of food(includes lots of plastic) has drastically extended human life expectancy around the planet.  That’s good, right?  What you really mean is that we need to learn proper disposal techniques for plastic. I’m old, trust me, we have much less air pollution than 50 years ago. Considering how global and interdependent the world’s economies are what you really mean is arriving at a reasonable amount of pollution, relative to benefits received. Same with pollution into the water. The economies of the West have largely gotten a handle on these problems. 
Deforestation?  What does that even mean?  I live in a wooden house as do millions of others. Wood is a basic construction material around the globe.  You realize the the eastern US is actually reforesting, right?

Sorry for the rant, but knee jerk reactions really bother me. 

Posted

Science isn't magic.   It is about discovering and applying the rules of nature.  It is highly limited by our understanding.  

The problem comes when people reject science's limits and believe they can create a paradise on earth through "science".   People, including scientists, don't understand science, especially regarding people, as well as they believe.   We have flawed "science" based upon flawed research, often distorted by the personal needs of the researchers.   This has led to the replication problem in science today.

Science needs to be open, not closed.   Just because we believe we know something about "science" we must be open to being wrong and needing to shift the paradigm.

Also, science today is being corrupted to serve other goals.   Lines of research and questioning are not allowed.   Science is often far less empirical today than in the past. 

Posted
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Maybe. Transportation and packaging of food(includes lots of plastic) has drastically extended human life expectancy around the planet.  That’s good, right?  What you really mean is that we need to learn proper disposal techniques for plastic. I’m old, trust me, we have much less air pollution than 50 years ago. Considering how global and interdependent the world’s economies are what you really mean is arriving at a reasonable amount of pollution, relative to benefits received. Same with pollution into the water. The economies of the West have largely gotten a handle on these problems. 
Deforestation?  What does that even mean?  I live in a wooden house as do millions of others. Wood is a basic construction material around the globe.  You realize the the eastern US is actually reforesting, right?

Sorry for the rant, but knee jerk reactions really bother me. 

Did you want to post this a fourth time for good measure? Seriously go ahead and ignore me. Please. You have my permission.

Posted
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

realize the the eastern US is actually reforesting, right?

The US is a massive consumer of global products. By its choices it can influence how products are made in other countries, including use of wood like bamboo where possible that grows quickly as opposed to old growth wood. 
 

Between deforestation and reforestation which replaces about half of the loss, we are losing about half the size of Portugal a year in forest coverage according to one site (and I admit to not doublecheck the stats, so it may be off…I was most curious about how much impact reforestation was having, which is highly significant, but not yet close to balancing the loss).

Since 14% of deforestation is for the purpose of importing products meant to end up in the US and similarly situated countries, our practices could help close the 50% gap. 
 

https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation#forest-transitions-why-do-we-lose-then-regain-forests

Posted
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

the world’s economies are what you really mean is arriving at a reasonable amount of pollution, relative to benefits received.

Have you looked at how unhealthy some areas are…including areas in the US like Salt Lake Valley?

And air pollution in the US is on the rise again. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/24/climate/air-pollution-increase.html


For a global look:

https://ourworldindata.org/outdoor-air-pollution

Here is a real time world map so you can see where the worst spots are. I found it awhile back when Salt Lake was having some bad days.  It was not the worst, but way up there. 
 

https://waqi.info

Posted
1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Same with pollution into the water. The economies of the West have largely gotten a handle on these problems. 

https://www.seametrics.com/blog/water-pollution-facts/
 

Quote

The Mississippi River carries an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen pollution into the Gulf of Mexico each year, creating a “dead zone” in the Gulf each summer about the size of New Jersey.”
Source

“Approximately 40% of the lakes in America are too polluted for fishing, aquatic life, or swimming.”
Source

“Each year 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, stormwater, and industrial waste are dumped into US water.”
Source

Quote

About 10% of America’s beaches fail to meet the federal benchmark for what constitutes safe swimming water.
Source

“Federal authorities estimate that the headwaters of 40 percent of Western rivers are tainted with toxic discharge from abandoned mines.”
Source

In the United States there are thought to be over 20,000 known abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and these sites could contaminate the groundwater if there is a leak.
Source

 

Posted
On 12/31/2021 at 3:42 PM, CA Steve said:

Hi CB,

I am not arguing the flood happened, just stating that religion claims it did. I personally do not believe it happened but Pogi stated that 

and I was pointing out that religion itself believed that God had the capacity to destroy humanity and had already done so contrary to science.

Thanks for your clarification.

Posted
On 1/1/2022 at 6:50 PM, Calm said:

Have you looked at how unhealthy some areas are…including areas in the US like Salt Lake Valley?

And air pollution in the US is on the rise again. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/24/climate/air-pollution-increase.html


For a global look:

https://ourworldindata.org/outdoor-air-pollution

Here is a real time world map so you can see where the worst spots are. I found it awhile back when Salt Lake was having some bad days.  It was not the worst, but way up there. 
 

https://waqi.info

It looks like China and India need some smog regulations. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It looks like China and India need some smog regulations. 

I have been to Africa, and there are many places there that are unhealthy.  No infrastructure, little food, no medical.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...