It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Shouldn't Science And State Become One?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 01:11 AM
Because scientists lie as much as priests do.

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:55 PM

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: andre18

Why shouldn't a fly and a cat become one? Because a fly is a fly and a cat is a cat.

No, but Brundles and Flies are fine.
edit on 28-11-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:56 PM

originally posted by: NthOther
Because scientists lie as much as priests do.

Scientists are the new Priesthood.
Academics have become their clerics.
The Autocracy still holds the reigns.

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 10:23 PM
i think science and technology will one day make government obsolete.
If science and technology come to the level where it makes working for the average person a choice and not a necessity, governments will be unable to control what people think and do.

I honestly think one day our government will be replaced by a blockchain type of technology where the people don't need to vote for a human, but rather for a way a program runs and distributes our resources depending on what the people voted for.

When you think about it a lot of our government officials can be replaced by computer programs that don't have the ability to lie. They are just representatives of the the collective mind, that usually don't actually do anything to represent us. Our funds and resources could be much better distributed by a open ledger computer that isn't greedy.

This will all be a time when humanity has evolved past the need for money.

posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 02:23 AM
Hi everyone and thank you all for your responses so far. I have been kept away and so now i will try and respond in kind.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: andre18

This is why not:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

Can you guess who said this, and once you do, I wonder why no one ever talks about this second warning he gave? Everyone knows about the first warning, but this one came right afterward and no one knows about it. I wonder why ...

Here you are talking about implementing it wholesale.


You know i thought about this beforehand and i believe there is a misleading frame of mind in judging the furthering of technology from the mismanagement of any particular groups whether the industrial complex or other wise, for you see the agenda that pushes those technologies arent coming out of every or really most fields of scientific study, but instead only those with an agenda to seize and dominate power.

This is at least in my mind, the result of a social system that allows a lack of scientific inquiry, assessment and review of the emotional and mental state of every one of it's citizens, in which gagging the lack of or possessing of genes that would express an aptitude for morality.

I feel a government that was lead by scientists, with the scientific method as the method to which gives way to policies, would more so than not seek to allocate national funds into practical research that would determine this most important criteria within the human experience. Can this individual when given sufficient means be a problem to society or a benefit.
edit on 30-11-2018 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 02:53 AM

a reply to: Lumenari

People have been trying that for a long time now.

First it was called communism.

Then it was called socialism...

Then there were a couple of times where it was called something else and about 150 million people died...

And now it is called Progressivism.

i feel like, you havn't truly understood the implications of what you have said here. At what time in our period of history between the rise of communism to todays capitalism was any measure of scientific exploration into the best social system suited for human beings actually tested? All the systems that were imposed within Russia and China were done to suit the leaders of their time, they werent a result of interest of the prosperity of the people, only the nation.

Simply falling back to examples of failed engineered social systems that were highly discompassionate as evidence of any further attempts at testing new concepts as doomed to fail or just another communism is obviously rather silly.

Why new social systems arent tested in computer models to identify the best concepts worth testing and actually have generous government funds allocated to testing them out is to my mind self evident. And of course those whom have interests to not lose their power in our current system would never welcome such ideas. Where i believe scientists in such positions of power would prefer to seek out the truth for the sake of science and truth than the contrary.
edit on 30-11-2018 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 09:56 PM
It would yield the same results as the religions times ten, it just how logical would the arguments be if there was the United Atheists alliance...or their rival the Alliance of Atheists United.

Were just to technologically immature, just look at the internet.

WW3 will start because of an offense post.

edit on 30-11-2018 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 10:00 PM
a reply to: andre18

Thing is that money and power corrupt. The scientific method is no proof against that. If it was, our academia would look a lot different than it does. There would be true science and not the rein of ideology like their is on our college campuses. There would the love of objective truth and not mere subjective truth. We wouldn't be looking at how subjects like math are white oppressive or even any race oppressive thanks to intersectional theories of race, sex, and social class constructs. We'd understand that numbers simply are.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in