Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


In reply to the discussion: Food for Thought [View all]


(17,671 posts)
62. It's still the same problem.
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 12:50 PM
Jan 2012

Technology follows science as surely as night follows day. And we use technology to facilitate more science. You can't build precision insturments without engineering and the industrial processes that support it. And all that stuff has to be paid for. Just think about how much science and technology used in our daily lives began as a weapon of one sort or another. We have stolen most of the resources that have facilitated our technological and scientifec prowess.

It isn't just about science either, but the common denominator between science, technology, emotion, and religion: people. We developed marvelous mythologies and used them to burn each other alive. We developed marvelous technologies and did the same thing.

The practice of science, like the practice of faith, is a discipline that requires us to set aside ego in the exploration of the unknown. It's what we do and we are no more able to avoid one than the other.

A new energy source of some sort will surely be found. The question is will it be an economically viable source able to fuel the lifestyle we currently enjoy before we start burning each other alive for the luxury of satellite enabled Tweets and reality tevevision.

People were able to treat each other fairly and compassionately before the development of clean linen and asphalt shingles and I expect us to have to learn to do so again because the wealth that supports the science is going to disappear.

I have no idea what will be left. Maybe we'll have iPads on saddle horns. But the practice of science won't make us any more humane than the practice of religion in the face of our ability to exploit the wealth of resources around us. We just weren't designed to manage abundance, and both science and religion facilitate its exploitation.

Food for Thought [View all] UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2012 OP
If all the achievements of science were wiped out rrneck Jan 2012 #1
And the greatest chance we have to overcome those threats, and many more not attributable darkstar3 Jan 2012 #27
Is it? Or do we need more humanity, social justice, compassion and empathy? cbayer Jan 2012 #29
I don't think your items and mine are mutually exclusive. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #36
I don't think they are mutually exclusive either. cbayer Jan 2012 #42
I don't think more of what got us into this mess rrneck Jan 2012 #31
That's because you misattribute the responsibility for "this mess". darkstar3 Jan 2012 #34
Who is responsible? nt rrneck Jan 2012 #46
And we will still have had mass murder, smallpox outbreaks, most children dying before the age of 3. Humanist_Activist Jan 2012 #40
We have all those benefits rrneck Jan 2012 #45
Its what you do with those resources that count... Humanist_Activist Jan 2012 #51
I find your optimism appealing rrneck Jan 2012 #59
Correction, current technology(most of it) runs on fossil fuels... Humanist_Activist Jan 2012 #61
It's still the same problem. rrneck Jan 2012 #62
There is a reason he is a cosmologist and not a philospher. cbayer Jan 2012 #2
He was a good prophet though. nt rrneck Jan 2012 #3
I thought he was still alive. cbayer Jan 2012 #4
Nope. Died 12.20.96. An interesting fellah. nt rrneck Jan 2012 #5
You're thinking Sagan. SwissTony Jan 2012 #7
Ha! So i am! More coffee for me. nt rrneck Jan 2012 #8
He is. Carl Sagan and my brain are not. :) nt rrneck Jan 2012 #11
Dawkins is a cosmologist??? nt. SwissTony Jan 2012 #6
Like rrneck, I was also confused. Thought this was a Stephen Hawking quote. More coffee!! cbayer Jan 2012 #9
Um, he is FAR FROM a cosmolgist: MarkCharles Jan 2012 #12
Yes, I know. I had him confused (see above) cbayer Jan 2012 #13
And how would a philosopher regard the history of religion's contribution MarkCharles Jan 2012 #14
Guess that would depend on the philosopher. cbayer Jan 2012 #15
You condemned Dawkins for NOT being a "philosopher".. interesting... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #17
As I mentioned, I had confused him with someone else (see above.... again) cbayer Jan 2012 #18
So what, precisely does "philosophy" offer that "science"... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #19
Philosophy and religion answer some questions that science can not or has not cbayer Jan 2012 #20
Ah yes, how can one question Christmas? MarkCharles Jan 2012 #21
Why do you care what people do in the privacy of their own homes or organizations. cbayer Jan 2012 #22
"Why not join forces to fight common foes?" So who decides which are.. MarkCharles Jan 2012 #23
Well here on DU, it's pretty clear who the common foes are. cbayer Jan 2012 #24
I could ask the same question of religious believers. What... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #30
Mr. Charles, you have called me uneducated, immature, delusional, illogical and many other things. cbayer Jan 2012 #32
I have never called ANY PERSON on ANY forum those words... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #43
Oh, I forgot to add paranoid. We are done here. cbayer Jan 2012 #49
Not one of those accused YOU, but typical religious thought processes MarkCharles Jan 2012 #50
Now as to your rights to accuse Mr Dawkins of stating "baloney"... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #44
Is that really your purpose? Sal316 Jan 2012 #33
Your defensiveness is noted, as is your disdain for anyone MarkCharles Jan 2012 #35
And being a theologian makes you an "expert" in what? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #38
Uhhh...theology. Sal316 Jan 2012 #47
They weren't "scare quotes". They were "laugh quotes". darkstar3 Jan 2012 #48
Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #58
Just like learning Klingon makes you and expert in... uhhh.... Klingon AlbertCat Jan 2012 #55
And what answers are those? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #25
IMHO, they are highly personal and individualized. cbayer Jan 2012 #28
So how are they "answers"? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #37
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. cbayer Jan 2012 #39
Yes. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #41
they are highly personal and individualized. AlbertCat Jan 2012 #56
Agree on all points. But they are not mutually exclusive. cbayer Jan 2012 #57
Philosophy and religion answer some questions ... for many people. AlbertCat Jan 2012 #53
There is a reason he is a cosmologist and not a philospher. AlbertCat Jan 2012 #52
The concept of a scientist probably did not exist until LARED Jan 2012 #10
You are quite right about the world "scientist" MarkCharles Jan 2012 #16
And? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #26
The ancient Greeks were well on the way.... AlbertCat Jan 2012 #54
So, we would be like China? (nt) The Straight Story Jan 2012 #60
His problem is he is casting science and scientists almost as a species separate from humanity. rug Jan 2012 #63
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Food for Thought»Reply #62