Copied from the comment thread:
------------------------------------
Reva-T said...
in responce to geppetto:
Its true that with science, we could solve certain problems. But if you think about it, science is what created most of those problems. With out science, there would have been no industry. With no industry, there would have been no use of greenhouse gases. And no greenhouse gases means no global warming. But science is different because everything that has been discovered, was bound to happen. And anything that hasnt been discovered, is bound to be discovered (for the most part).
-------------------------------------
Italics are added by me...
I find myself wondering: is the highlighted statement accurate? Am I alone in this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
No, you are not alone that belief. There is no doubt that science is the primary building block of industry, but this cannot be used to devalue science. For the most part, industry creates greenhouse gasses, it doesn't use them. I also disagree with the implication that industry is the only source of greenhouse gasses (and thus global warming). There has got to be more naturally produced greenhouse gas than there is produced by industry. I cannot honestly assess the italicised section, due to the fact that I don't entirely comprehend it.
I dont agree with this statement at all. Things that discovered were not 'meant to be discovered' so many things were found out by accident, or by researching another factor/theory. I dont think that all things that will be discovered in the furture are bound to be discovered.. we create what will happen. Interlocked destinies create the future. And what if we just stopped looking...
I agree with balzac on both arguements.
In responce to the italics in the comment by reva-t. You can not say that we were meant to discover what we did and we have not discovered what we weren't meant to discover yet. You're moving out of the path of science into religion; you're saying that there is a greater power that chose us to find certain things or have certain events happen and others not. That's like saying that 11 million people were meant to die under Hitler and Bush was destined to become president of the United States (unfortunatly for us).
As for what 'balzac the jaws of death' said about green house gases. You have a valid arguement that factories are not responsible for ALL of the green house gases in our atmosphere. We, humans, and all animals emit CO2 when we breathe. BUT, it is not only animals that emit CO2. Contrary to popular belief, the Tropical Rainforest actually emits TONS of CO2 every day. Everyone is under the assumption that it brings in CO2 and uses it in photosynthesis. It does, but we forget one aspect and natural necessity for photosynthesis: light. At night, plant cells perform cellular respiration (the opposite of photosynthesis) and emit CO2. So much that it almost counteracts its positive effects that it has during the day.
balzac: you're one smart kids and you know what you're talking about. You seem philosophical in your ways, espessicially your first post. Just stop bashing everything us normal people say.
In a response to the lines in italics, that is completely false. To say that everything will be found out is just untrue; for instance, what makes up the particle that makes up the particle that makes up the particle that makes up a proton? There is a very high chance that we shall never find out. As far as science being bound to happen, the atom bomb is a perfect example of something completely human designed. There is pretty much no way to split an atom without human interaction.
I could be completly wrong but, in responce to 0wpm, I believe that protons aremade up of quarks which are just electricity.
That could be 100% wrong but I think I read it on one of those posters in the science wing.
Though in an indirect way science has been a cuase of climate change, it cannot be completely vilified. I will begin by posing the alternative: a world in which science does not exist. Without science we would only follow the word of religion or whatever other rubbish that enters the social mind.
In a place where freedom, whatever that is, is so highly valued (above life, itself, even) it is important to have some established principles that find their basis in reality so that we might be able to think, freely, for ourselves. It seems, in this case that knowledge is the basis of freedom, and science is the basis of knowledge; where human analysis enters the realm of physical interaction.
Everything would be dirty too
Post a Comment