The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours

[Tradesonred]

Your discussion makes me think of something, that sometimes scientists act like priests.

Say when the female amateur anthropologist Elaine Morgan presented her case for the aquatic ape theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis some of the critique laid against her was that she was an outsider, that if "serious" anthropologists didnt figure this out on their own, how could she? Or the initial resistance upon cave paintings discovery of accepting that they might genuinely be from prehistoric times.

I had the same feeling hearing Frank Drake talk about long distance space travel (he was talking of it in general, not just the ability of the human race to do so), which he says is most likely impossible because of tiny pebbles in space that will make so much energy upon contact with a fast traveling ship that it will create nuclear explosions.

I couldnt beleive that this guy, who is responsible for the birth of the SETI program, wasnt able to conceive that a civilization who knows how electricity works for millions of years, not a century and a half, might have solved this problem a million years ago. Not being able to conceive that at the exponential rate technology is progressing, in 500 years if we didnt eradicate ourselves this might be a trivial space travel problem.

Thats what i was talking about in the OP, scientists in love with their own proficiency, humility about possibilities goes out the window.

Technology is another thing that terrifies me, not in itself but what unconscienable people will do with it. Like the terminator seed patent from Monsanto, which prevents a plant from creating seeds. This is some Dr. Death bullshit right there.

[Glenzig]

[QUOTE=Tradesonred;1961731]Your discussion makes me think of something, that sometimes scientists act like priests./QUOTE]

True. And some of them would literally like to be viewed as such.

Michael Shermer. From his book The Shamans of Scientism:
"First, cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions. Second, we are, at base, a socially hierarchical primate species. We show deference to our leaders, pay respect to our elders and follow the dictates of our shamans; this being the Age of Science, it is scientism’s
shamans who command our veneration. Third, because of language we are also storytelling, mythmaking primates, with scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time."

[paulgiamatti]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress. Look at Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent work. You can see this happening right now, in real-time, as the anti-vaccination movement is continually ridiculed by people who understand how legitimate science is done.

[Luminari]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress. Look at Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent work. You can see this happening right now, in real-time, as the anti-vaccination movement is continually ridiculed by people who understand how legitimate science is done.

Only problem with this is the fact that vaccines are being intentionally laced with known poisonous chemicals making them completely unsafe. Also there's the fact that actual evidence shows that all of the diseases that vaccines supposedly cured were already cured before the vaccine was introduced. For instance, the death rate of measles had declined by 90% before the vaccine was introduced but vaccines took the credit. Wakefield isn't the fraud, it's the pharmaceutical companies that are. Wakefield isn't the one with billions of dollars to gain by making fraudulent claims and yet morons like yourself take the side of the people who clearly have an agenda.

Also I find it extremely hilarious that you claim that biased science is bad science and yet you believe in evolution which has no actual scientific evidence supporting it. Anyone who subscribes to evolution has no clue how science actually works. Science REQUIRES observable and experimental evidence and evolution does literally neither of these things. Yet because a lot of scientists believe it, it MUST be true, obviously! Because that's how you think science works, where as long as enough people believe, to hell with the scientific method!

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress.

Depends on who is doing the scrutinizing, and how dearly the ideas behind the science are held. Progress doesn't always have to mean an increase in knowledge or proof. Sometimes progress is about how many people you can get to agree with you.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sometimes progress is about how many people you can get to agree with you.

Acceptance into academia doesn't always mean progress. Bad ideas can be readily accepted by a lot of people. This isn't something that needs to be pointed out.

Progress, on the other hand, is simply progress. Progress doesn't care how many people agree with it. If everyone came to a consensus that we should decapitate a small child and roll its head down a pyramid every Sunday as an offering to the gods, that would not be progress.

[paulgiamatti]

I'll just leave this here for now: https://youtu.be/3oH0ReL3Cew

[Luminari]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Acceptance into academia doesn't always mean progress. Bad ideas can be readily accepted by a lot of people. This isn't something that needs to be pointed out

It is something that needs to be pointed out though since a lot of people think that vaccines are good for us and that evolution is real and that steel skyscrapers can collapse at free fall speed from a couple of small fires.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Acceptance into academia doesn't always mean progress. Bad ideas can be readily accepted by a lot of people. This isn't something that needs to be pointed out.

Progress, on the other hand, is simply progress. Progress doesn't care how many people agree with it. If everyone came to a consensus that we should decapitate a small child and roll its head down a pyramid every Sunday as an offering to the gods, that would not be progress.

Within the last 10-20 years the idea of purposefully decreasing the population of the earth has become viewed as something that will most likely be necessary for human progress and survival. It's amazing that people will now casually talk about how overpopulated the earth is and how Depopulation will be necessary in the near future. The amount of humans that would be brutally murdered in such an event would make your scenario pale in comparisson. Yet, more and more people are convinced that what would basically be a mass genocide is just something that needs to happen. That it would somehow be progressive.

So is it a bad idea, or would it be progress?

[Humerox]

Moot since the US and Russia/China are poised on the brink. The idea that nuclear war can be "won" rings the bell for us.

Just a matter of time, now.