Science isn't Everything

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 02:24 PM
link   
It is true that if people interpret it wrong and kill someone for their religion thats there own fault. But it never would of happened if someone didnt sit down and say to themselves, lets make a new religion because im bored.

I know how easy it is to make a religion as I already have done it... Yes... I was really bored during study...




posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 04:06 PM
link   
First of all: I have no idea why it is under paranormal abilities. Sorry, I am new here, prolly my fault. :-)

Ok. Spubbles or who ever said that: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? I have always wondered that. I don't think ignorance is bliss, but I think not knowing EVERYTHING is bliss too. Why do we really need to know why light reflects off things? I mean, is that gonna help become better people?

Whoever said it: I am not saying destroy all technology. We have to have some technology to live, like you said. I am saying that even if i don't get a chance to talk to people like you guys via internet, maybe computers are just making us more and more lazy. I mean, most people these days are obese, and that MAY be because for entertainment we can comfortable sit our tushes down on our cusioned furniture and sit in front of the tv and eat ALL DAY while people on the other side of the world die of starvation.

Astrocreep: How did we do our environment more damage when we were primitive than now? Sorry, just missing the point. Also, kindly open your eyes and see that very little is being done about the environment.

Does anyone think that the way we're living now is wrong? I admit that my opinions are a little radical, but, still. I can't help it. I think that maybe we wouldn't be as happy, but maybe we would be even more happy, in some ways. Everyone sees animals as completely different... and totally unrelated. HELLO! We are animals too, we just never realize that cuz we are too busy killing them off. If we were primitive, we would again take back our rightful status as equal with all of the other animals in our world. We would be dealing with the same issues that they go through- food, safety, numbers... I can't accept the fact that civilizing is a good thing.

Cidergood man: Yeah, it is also human nature to hate. Who said human nature was full of good stuff? You saying that a murderer could justify his actions by just saying, "Yeah, well... I hated the person I killed. It's part of human nature, so it's all good." ???

Whoever said it: Ok, I took an art class and it has completely jaded my point of view of art. Now I think, gee, where is the movement? What shapes and colors did they use? Why? Instead of just being like, hey, that's cool. It makes me think of... And also- I meant right angles and straight lines as figurative language-meaning science.

Religion: I don't really believe in religion-- I kinda think that it's another form of brainwashing when I see my religious friends. I mean, people kill eachother over what we believe. C'mon!
~Peace out
PS spubbles: you actually made a religion?
that's cool!



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LorenaDoes anyone think that the way we're living now is wrong?


It's neither wrong, nor right, it simply is they way it is.

Too many people make too many attempts to over analyze (or in this case, under analyze) the current techno-centric state of society. We have reached this point of societal evolution as a result of millions of years of steady progression with one thing in mind, survival. We have a deep instinct to better our environment to increase our chances of survival, it is the way our brains are wired. Unlike other species who specialize are specialized with certain physical attributes, or specialized for a certain diet, we are specialized to think. And this thinking of how to survive is what elevated ancient man from the grasses of the Serengeti, to the towers of New York City.

However, now that we've ensured the survival of even the weakest of our species, our brains are still wired to consider the nuances of existence. Hence, we consider luxury and convenience, when we no longer need to plan survival. It's another step in evolution. Natural. Expected. Even predicted to some extent.

Science and technology is what we've continued to use to ensure our survival. From ancient man's first hand-axe chipped from stone, to biotechnology used to bring us on the cusp of a cure for cancer. It is simply the way our brains are wired.



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Ok, Ok. Good point. But have you ever read "Brave New World?" Do you think that it is possible that all of us are CONDITIONED to feel that way? That it is OK to just sit back and let the robots cook dinner? All of the people I know, I want to look at them and scream, "do you realize how self centered you're being?" And how can you say we are trying to help the weakest of our species? What about the people dying from starvation and stuff? Through all of our sciences, we haven't bothered to help them? Why should we have the technology stuff and luxeries and convieniences and crap when they have next to nothing? I'm sorry, but I don't think that it's just "human nature," or "how or minds are wired." It doesn't justify anything. We can't just kill people cuz it's the way our mind works. and it isn't about surviving anymore. It's about having your life perfect, which is impossible. Sorry if I seem out there, but I really feel strongly about this.



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 09:29 PM
link   
The point is that science and technology are very useful tools to solve a certain set of problems. For example, how do we get from point A to point B. Well we first used horses, then built trains, then automobiles and airplanes. Or how do I communicate to someone over a distance (now we have telephones and the internet to solve that problem). However, science and technology cannot be used to solve all problems (moral problems). I think today too many people expect that technology should be able to solve all the problems in their life and can't figure out why they have a spirtual vacuum.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lorena

Astrocreep: How did we do our environment more damage when we were primitive than now? Sorry, just missing the point. Also, kindly open your eyes and see that very little is being done about the environment.



Well, lets look at some examples between our culture and more primitive cultures. We really need not even look to the past to compare. Lets take Africa and the US for a contrast. First, medical availability. if not for influence of outside cultures, Africa's only medicine would most likely be that performed by witch doctors. You mentioned environment. In one month , Africa's forest burning releases more carbon into the atmosphere than the US does in an entire year. In a short period, their timber supply will be exhausted with no replenishment programs in place. The US saw the writing on the wall in the 60s and now have more timber than we did 100 years ago to the point that the founder of Greenpeace has said its our most replenishing and abundant resource. Why? Because to business and private sectors, the replanting of future crops has become just as important as the harvest of current crops. Science has let us detect and deter desease, insect damage, and given us a way to manage the crop in an efficient way. The same with growing food. Our farmers don't need vast areas of land due to proper management and fertilization techniques that give higher yields requiring less space. If you still don't believe me, I'll leave you with a quote from someone you might pay more respect to in relation to the environment..

"The environmentalists try to inject guilt into people for consuming, as if consuming by itself causes destruction to the environment. There is no truth to that. You have the wealthiest countries on earth with the best looked-after environment. Poverty, not wealth, is one of the biggest threats to the Earth's ecological health. Look at the environmental destruction caused by poverty. They have no money left to reforest, they have no money left to prevent soil erosion, and there is no money to clean their water after they make it dirty. It's that kind of arrogance that is coming from a movement that is basically white upper-middle class and is saying that it's neat to have Africans with no electricity. They are mainly political activists with not very much actual science background who are using the rhetoric of environmentalism to push agendas that are more political than they are ecological.

-Patrick Moore, head of the environmental advocacy group Greenspirit, and a former founding member of Greenpeace. Moore left Greenpeace in the 1980s after becoming disillusioned with what he considered the group's radical approach to environmental concerns



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Jadfliger or whatever your name is: true, but is it really worth it? I mean we hurt the horses then (they weren't treated very fairly) and we cause pollution today with cars etc. Why can't we just walk?

astrocreep: Ok, I am not an environmentalist or an peta person or anything like that. Those people are too single minded for my taste. The thing is, I just don't think that we should be killing off the animals. And yeah, in the US we are planting trees, but most people don't give a care if we waste paper and crap, they don't see the cause and effect sitch. I know the environment is getting better with technology, but it is also getting worse. Companies say that they are replanting trees, but how can you trust them? They'll say anything. I still don't see how being primitive is more harmful than it is today. Question: Who burned the woods in Africa? what's wrong with witch doctors? Who knows? It could work? Maybe. I don't think it would, but if they believe it, who's to say that it's wrong?

Peace out



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 03:53 PM
link   
imagine a world where we didnt have any technology. Think of what it would be like... I am sure that you all think it would suck. But how would people living back then deal with it. By inventing more things to make our lives easier. Lauren..... (lorena) you have brought up some really good points. I think that science is everything or else we would probably all be dead.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 05:37 PM
link   
how could someone shoot someone without a gun?
how could someone stab someone without a knife?
how could someone hurt someone with any weapons?

well about the last one... it would be harder and more fairer..... mmmmm fairer...... well if the person was a weakling.... survival of the fittest......

about survival of the fittest....
if we didnt have a cure for many diseases they would be dead with the people that had them. If we didnt try to save the ones that were sick then we wouldnt be contaimanated. Its what we did many many years back. Stupid ethics.

pce

[Edited on 17-6-2003 by spubbles]



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I think the question is really, "What is Science"
Some consider science as a religion on its own.
With its own code of ethic, morals, virtues.
I dont think one can say, where would we be without science, i think science is more than people think it is.
I think its just a term used to describe our urge for discovery.
I think science is everything.
We would not be here discussing this if it were not for the sciences of man!
Thats just my opinion anyways!

Deep



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:39 PM
link   
science was once know as philosophy and incorporated science and religion into a single discipline.
it is called phi-losophy because of the unique and well known golden mean, or phi ratio. the fractals of life are based on the phi ratioo. the fibonacci sequence approximates the golden mean as the numbers get larger.
the fibonnaci sequence is derived by adding the two previous numbers to get the next one. like 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 33, 54, ....etc. a pine cone, a nautilus shell, a conch shell, your fingers to your arms, et al, all follow this ratio.
the higher this sequence goes, the closer the ratio between adjacent numbers is to the golden mean ratio, which is 1.618....
if you look into this stuff, you should be amazed at what you'll find. it is one of the big secrets of life.
i wonder why they don't teach it in school?
key words for a search..."golden mean", "phi ratio", "sacred geometry".



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The point is that science and technology are useful tools to solve a certain set of problems. Expecting science to solve all the world's problems is useless when the problem concerns moral, political, or ethnic issues. Technology can and is quite useful in solving certain issues (for example, build more efficient automobiles that will pollute less.) But science and technology cannot be used to solve issues such as the situation in Africa. Some of these problems are being caused by ethnic wars. How can science solve that sort of problem. Expecting science and technology to be everything is akin to a carpenter expecting to do his job with just a hammer. No we cannot just do away with science and technology, but we cannot expect it to solve all our problems. By the way consider this: You can have technology without science, but you cannot have science without technology.



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Well you could always take your lazy self to the jungle in South America and live there....



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 02:46 AM
link   


Well you could always take your lazy self to the jungle in South America and live there....


So what is your point????? You don't like the concept that science can't sovle all problems????



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 02:49 AM
link   
I love technology, more please!

I like my computer, my AC, even my shoes, and I like my george foreman grill!

I am a consumer whore, and readily admit it.

Better than living in denial, eh?



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Science can solve all my problems... But my comment was to the creator of this thread...



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lorena
astrocreep: Ok, I am not an environmentalist or an peta person or anything like that. Those people are too single minded for my taste. The thing is, I just don't think that we should be killing off the animals. And yeah, in the US we are planting trees, but most people don't give a care if we waste paper and crap, they don't see the cause and effect sitch. I know the environment is getting better with technology, but it is also getting worse. Companies say that they are replanting trees, but how can you trust them? They'll say anything. I still don't see how being primitive is more harmful than it is today. Question: Who burned the woods in Africa? what's wrong with witch doctors? Who knows? It could work? Maybe. I don't think it would, but if they believe it, who's to say that it's wrong?

Peace out


Well, first question, who burns the forest in Africa? People trying to raise crops without the knowledge or technology to do as effeicient as possible. People building shelters because they lack wealth or knowhow to optimize space or clean up the area they have already dirtied. Not that I'm badgering those poor souls. I really feel for them. They want modernization. They want industrialization and the US wants to help them get it but the people that think they have the right to make the decision live in Manhatten, L.A., or Santa Barbera and are sitting in a Starbucks sipping a latte trying to justify keeping this culture half way around the world in poverty to "preserve their culture". I sure as hell am glad no one preserved early American culture. Other than museums and landmarks.

Second, what's wrong with Witch Doctors? Nothing I don't guess unless your dying or in pain that won't stop. Ever wonder what it would be like to suffer for days on end with no pain killers?

Third, yes we "really" do emphasize replenishing our timder . Why? Out of the goodness of out hearts? No, because in 20 years, they are profit for a company to pay workers and lumber for people to build homes and 20 years down the road when those trees are harvested, more will be planted. Our environment hasn't gotten better because of endless whining, it has gotten better because we finally realized what a resource we have and how it can be managed for future use. Now, we take hikes on pristine nature preserves and we make natural paradise right in our own backyards. We take time to enjoy nature now that we aren't trying to find food on a daily basis.



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 04:08 PM
link   
OK....
1: Alex: Oh, so now that you know who I am you are supporting me? haha. jk. e-mail me
2: Astrocreep: Have you gone to Africa and asked them, just out of curiosity? How do you know they want to be industrialized? Maybe you do know that for a fact, I am just making sure that I can take that as truth. Witch doctors- what you have never had you never miss. For them it works. I read somewhere that in some tribes, with no medicine, the cure rate for witch doctors was 99%. I totally forget where I read this, so I may have to check back, but still.... plus, if the Africans had places they could move with better climate conditions, they would much easily grow plants. Problem is, they can't just move from a tribe to an industrialized city. I am sorry, but I think industrilization is overrated. And I still disagree totally on the environment thing.

To Syntax: Maybe I would, except the jungles are being destroyed every day, and I would probably be pushed out of my home because of this. And I don't think science can fix all of your problems.

Lysergic: Denial? I don't think I'm living in denial, not about consumerism and stuff, at least. Look, I am addicted to buying stuff, and commericals and crap like that, but I am trying to stop myself from it. Cuz I don't like being at the companies' mercy.
~Peace



posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lorena


2: Astrocreep: Have you gone to Africa and asked them, just out of curiosity? How do you know they want to be industrialized? Maybe you do know that for a fact, I am just making sure that I can take that as truth. Witch doctors- what you have never had you never miss. For them it works. I read somewhere that in some tribes, with no medicine, the cure rate for witch doctors was 99%. I totally forget where I read this, so I may have to check back, but still.... plus, if the Africans had places they could move with better climate conditions, they would much easily grow plants. Problem is, they can't just move from a tribe to an industrialized city. I am sorry, but I think industrilization is overrated. And I still disagree totally on the environment thing.




Lorena, all good questions my dear and I see the point you're coming from because I once held it. I haven't been to Africa but I did spend a summer working with an African who was in the US educating himself on guess what? civil engineering. His goal was to help his village improve by more efficient housing and better planning. Traveling with him all summer, I learned a great deal about his culture and their struggle to pull themselves out of the poverty. The thing he liked best about the US aside from food and water and comfortable places to sleep was our environment. He commented often on how even industrial complexes and commercial buildings took time to enact environmental programs right down to coal burning power companies.

I know the visions you imagine, fresh water falling down a mountain falls, birds chirping, green trees everywhere. A natural paradise. Well, we still have them in the US, more so than 100 years ago. In my state, the abandoned strip mines that used to marr the landscape have been recalimed to vast grasslands and through the fish and wildlife department, Elk have been reintroduced. An animal that hasn't lived here since the 1800s because humans settled the grassland areas and all that was left were forests which cannot provide the sustainable food source for them. As technology has evolved and grown along with science, we have become more aware of the environment and can now afford to invest in it. Before acience carried us out of the dark ages, we mine with wreckless regard and built roads and towns without considering what we were doing to wetlands and carst areas. Now, the EPA is the single biggest voice in any project. My point is the environment isn't a big issue to Africans, finding the next clean drink of water or the next bite to eat is. We can't fault them for that. Until they have a growing economy that competes in the world market and the technology to irrigate, clean their water, and either buy or grow their food, I fear it will remain. I'm certain that the initial industrial venture will yield picture after picture of pollution of factories but once they obtain enough wealth to meet basic needs, their ideas will turn to preserving their environment just as ours has and now that the vast array of techonology to produce products in a cleaner manner have been developed, I'm betting we don't see as dirty industrial beginning as we did in the US.



posted on Jun, 25 2003 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The original poster of this thread is totally wrong.

The simple fact that the universe has been proven to be closed with almost 100% certainty means that there is a limited amount of knowledge to be gain from our universe. What this means is that eventually there will come a time when we can no longer advance as a civilization because we will literally know everything there is to know.

The is only one question we will never be able to answer though and it is why? Why did the universe come into existance? This simple question will plague the inhabitants of the universe until the end of time. This is the one and only question that is unanswerable, everything else has an answer (that can be explain using science).





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join