If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Conversation)   Can science save us?   ( theconversation.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Orwell, Wells, science, George Orwell, Scientific method, Nineteen Eighty-Four, single world government, Herbert George Wells  
•       •       •

1991 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Dec 2017 at 12:10 PM (28 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-12-30 08:49:46 AM  
It's going to be close ...
 
2017-12-30 09:14:42 AM  
Yes. Or no.
 
2017-12-30 09:22:07 AM  
If people would stop pretending it's fake, yeah.
 
2017-12-30 09:24:23 AM  
Again?
 
2017-12-30 09:26:51 AM  
From what?
 
2017-12-30 09:29:43 AM  
It always has in the past.
 
2017-12-30 09:35:37 AM  

Relatively Obscure: From what?


More science!
 
2017-12-30 10:45:10 AM  
We should run some experiments and see.
 
2017-12-30 10:47:25 AM  
We're DOOMED! DOOMED, I SAY!

/This has been a test of the emergency pessimism system
// We now return you to our regular programming
 
2017-12-30 12:13:52 PM  

nekom: If people would stop pretending it's fake, yeah.


We gotta save Science first!
/ mostly in the US
 
2017-12-30 12:14:12 PM  
You can't save people who don't want to be saved.
 
2017-12-30 12:17:21 PM  

Relatively Obscure: From what?


Ourselves. Each other. Something in that general area.
 
2017-12-30 12:18:46 PM  

Relatively Obscure: From what?


Jesus, for starters.

/Making popcorn.
 
2017-12-30 12:21:23 PM  
As always, the answer to the headline is "no". Science should save us, but it won't, because there are a number of stupid people lead by megalomaniacs.
 
2017-12-30 12:25:11 PM  
No, because science in the hands of humans will always have unforeseen consequences.
 
2017-12-30 12:31:03 PM  
It'll save some of us some of the time.
 
2017-12-30 12:31:11 PM  
Ahh science.  Lets make some problems so we can then make solutions to them!
 
2017-12-30 12:41:37 PM  
Science is a tool to be used.  It can help us help ourselves or it can help us destroy ourselves and likely the planet we live on, because humans tend to be idiots.

Scientists: the ultimate "Here, hold my beer and watch this" group.
 
2017-12-30 12:43:37 PM  
no

the adoption of science as a religion by some has fractured our society

We need something new, not science, not religion, not nationalism
 
2017-12-30 12:50:52 PM  
You can't fix stupid.
 
2017-12-30 12:53:50 PM  
Short summary of TFA: Depends what you mean by science. If you mean teaching people habitual critical thinking and basing decisions on empirical evidence, yeah, maybe it will. If you mean basing government policy on sociology and economic theory... not so likely. Of course, we have to try to base policy on theory, but we should do so with an attitude of experimentation rather than of dogmatic "rightness."

Of course all of this is miles away from where we are today. For now, let's focus on finding representation that isn't still basing policy on ancient mythology, astrological symbols, or Ayn Rand's fantasy fiction.
 
2017-12-30 12:56:39 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-30 12:56:40 PM  

bigdanc: no

the adoption of science as a religion by some has fractured our society

We need something new, not science, not religion, not nationalism


  When I was in the Army I listed "science" as my religion.  That's still my response when asked that question.  I performs the same function as your traditional religions, but with facts vs faith.
 
2017-12-30 12:59:43 PM  
Science alone will not save us.  Science combined with people accepting the truth it gives us and then choosing to act on them might. Using science to manipulate people into acting on the truth that science gives us will.
 
2017-12-30 01:07:33 PM  
That's a bit like asking if science can stop the water from boiling after it's already started boiling on the stove. Sure, you can turn off the stove, but you've already killed off anything that may have been living in the water.
 
2017-12-30 01:23:14 PM  
Aside from cures for certain diseases, we already have all the tech it would take to make a utopia on Earth. Misappropriation of resources is the root of the problem, and that won't change from science alone.
 
2017-12-30 01:36:03 PM  
I haven't read TFA.

No. No it can't. Its funding is dependent on people with priorities ideologically aligned more towards disadvantaging and then killing 'the others' than making *all* our lives better.

So no. Apart from weapons science, if that's a thing. So, narrowly, yes. But no.

/sufficiently laden with misery?
 
2017-12-30 01:37:39 PM  
Perhaps anthropology and sociology can help answer the question?  Maybe start there.
 
2017-12-30 01:39:07 PM  

bazbt3: I haven't read TFA.

No. No it can't. Its funding is dependent on people with priorities ideologically aligned more towards disadvantaging and then killing 'the others' than making *all* our lives better.

So no. Apart from weapons science, if that's a thing. So, narrowly, yes. But no.

/sufficiently laden with misery?


  Science is the process, not the outcomes of that process.  It's a style of thinking that is independent of anything produced by it.
 
2017-12-30 01:54:14 PM  
Dumbass blogger can't tell the difference between science and technology.
 
2017-12-30 02:07:29 PM  

MAJ Ethanolic: bazbt3: I haven't read TFA.

No. No it can't. Its funding is dependent on people with priorities ideologically aligned more towards disadvantaging and then killing 'the others' than making *all* our lives better.

So no. Apart from weapons science, if that's a thing. So, narrowly, yes. But no.

/sufficiently laden with misery?

  Science is the process, not the outcomes of that process.  It's a style of thinking that is independent of anything produced by it.


'Man Combating Ignorance', TFA's lead photo caption sums up our unique situation well.  Gone are the days where the nobility, the independently wealthy or penniless geniuses could devote their time to thinking up interesting things to do, then order someone to make it, or hope someone could see *potential* in it, and eventually it might benefit the masses.

We're able to eradicate disease, irrigate the shiat our of the world, change the weather, communicate instantaneously with anyone anywhere on the planet, have eggs not stick to frying pans, not to mention Fisher Space Pens... but instead *choose* to visit lumps of rock in space and spend money studying teeny tiny particles in the Large Hardon End-Of-TheWorld machine... and, following on from my previous comment, would kill people *there* if sufficiently different to 'us.'

Without the will to improve humanity's lot, without an ability to produce outcomes from it because the political will doesn't exist, the *process* is utterly irrelevant.

///haz a sad.
//sorry, even more verbose than normal
/can't think where to add the word 'conflate'
.slashies!!
 
2017-12-30 02:07:40 PM  

MAJ Ethanolic: bigdanc: no

the adoption of science as a religion by some has fractured our society

We need something new, not science, not religion, not nationalism

  When I was in the Army I listed "science" as my religion.  That's still my response when asked that question.  I performs the same function as your traditional religions, but with facts vs faith.


No, it really doesn't
 
2017-12-30 02:10:50 PM  

Slaxl: Yes. Or no.


Are you in one half of those 10 kinds of people who understands binary arg...

/gets coat
 
2017-12-30 02:20:03 PM  
Can we learn to pull the parachute's ripcord before actually striking the ground?
 
2017-12-30 02:20:45 PM  

bigdanc: no

the adoption of science as a religion by some has fractured our society

We need something new, not science, not religion, not nationalism


Weed?
 
2017-12-30 02:21:14 PM  
"Wells vs Orwell"
It sounds like it might make a good indie movie.
If anybody can write a good script for it, I might be willing to produce it.
 
2017-12-30 02:31:56 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-30 02:45:23 PM  
If humanity can't control the population in an unbiased and mutually agreed way we're boned.
 
2017-12-30 02:50:46 PM  
Wells vs Orwell

[DRAFT 3.14]

--- Act 1: ---

Wells: "Fark you, you Farking pessimist!"

Orwell: "Oh, if you're going to be like that I'm off to Spain for a bit."

Exeunt

--- Intermission ---

[Acts 2-93 need work, held back for rewrites]

--- Act 94: ---

Albert and Robert arrive.

Orwell, newly-returned from a bit of a shindig: "Where's H.G.?

"Albert: "E."

(All laugh uproariously)

Narrator: "He died, thus decreasing the surplus population. Um... is this the right production? Ah, wait..."

Boooom!

(Add lighting effects)

Robert: "Ooh, that was pretty, but I shouldn't like to do it again."

Harry Stamper: "Oh, we will..."

--- The end ---
 
2017-12-30 02:51:51 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: "Wells vs Orwell"
It sounds like it might make a good indie movie.
If anybody can write a good script for it, I might be willing to produce it.


Done. Usual fee?
 
2017-12-30 02:57:17 PM  
No, science alone can't save us.  I'm no conservative, but we need to start espousing and enshrining some values, and I don't mean American-style, solo scriptura Christianity or laissez-faire capitalism.  We need to start talking about what is really good and align society up with that.
 
2017-12-30 03:09:39 PM  
Do we deserve to be saved?
 
2017-12-30 03:42:01 PM  
Read Wells' "Mind at the End of Its Tether." He soured on the Science Will Save Us idea big time by 1945.
 
2017-12-30 03:58:04 PM  

bigdanc: MAJ Ethanolic: bigdanc: no

the adoption of science as a religion by some has fractured our society

We need something new, not science, not religion, not nationalism

  When I was in the Army I listed "science" as my religion.  That's still my response when asked that question.  I performs the same function as your traditional religions, but with facts vs faith.

No, it really doesn't


  Well, can't argue with that well thought out, eloquent argument.

/scientist
//went into science for religious reasons
///science forms my world view just like religion does for religious people
 
2017-12-30 04:12:42 PM  
Maybe if some benevolent species learned how to science...
 
2017-12-30 04:25:21 PM  

MAJ Ethanolic: When I was in the Army I listed "science" as my religion.  That's still my response when asked that question.  I performs the same function as your traditional religions, but with facts vs faith.


The basis of religion is faith. Faith is the belief in something when there's no proof which is the opposite of fact-based belief. So believing in science isn't religion as I don't have to take it on faith.

There isn't a technological solution to every problem. The problems which will become the most important to be tackled in the future will likely require social change (consume less, breed less, share more) to solve rather than anything else .
 
2017-12-30 04:37:32 PM  
No, it's Flash.
 
2017-12-30 04:38:23 PM  
Not per se, no
 
2017-12-30 05:16:15 PM  
MAJ Ethanolic:  Well, can't argue with that well thought out, eloquent argument.

/scientist
//went into science for religious reasons
///science forms my world view just like religion does for religious people


Science is based on logic and evidence, religion is based on fairy tails and no evidence. I don't see a comparison at all.
 
2017-12-30 05:39:22 PM  
Finding a cure for cancer would be a good start.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report