Inject the word "irresponsible" into the equation, and you've about got it. It's irresponsible science that gets us into trouble. They need funding, and most of the time the funding is provided by somebody interested in making a buck at the expense of anything else...people, the environment, etc. Responsible science can move us forward safely...but it's the exception these days.
-
Opinions - 2. Human Evolution
-
And would you call curing cancer "irresponsible" science?
-
so now you defend your anti-science opinions by saying that most research is irresposible and that scientists aren't as smart as they want us to think they are.Please feel free to turn off your computer and sit in the dark. Those stupid and irresponsible scientist won't object.
-
And don't forget about the stupid irresponsible engineers who bring all the stupid irresponsible science to the stupid irresponsible people who use it.In the U.S., the federal government pays for the lion's share of basic scientific research. It also pays for the lion's share of pharmaceutical research (don't believe the drug company propaganda).
-
If what they come up with cures cancer but kills 50% of the patients in the process and makes the others sterile, yes, I'd call that irresponsible.No comment to unsupervised and SteveA who've both had too much coffee.
-
If what they come up with cures cancer but kills 50% of the patients in the process and makes the others sterile, yes, I'd call that irresponsible.Are you speaking of something that exists, or is that hypothetical? Is that a justification to halt science, or is it just biomedical research with human applications that you have a problem with?
-
If what they come up with cures cancer but kills 50% of the patients in the process and makes the others sterile, yes, I'd call that irresponsible.You can't honestly think that's even remotly possibleand "too much coffee" is just a simple fact of life for me.
-
He's unable to respond to difficult questions. Some of his positions can be reasonably defended, at least if they're worded properly, but we'll have to wait for a more articlate poster for that to happen.I don't drink a lot of coffee, but I had a cup of tea this morning.
-
I'm just not sure why he can't accept that better living through research and science is not a myth. One can site as many scientific mistakes as one likes, but the overal positive effect cannot be ignored.Sometimes, even good comes from mistakes. Thalidomide is an excellent example. Pescribed as an anti-nausiant to pregnant women, it resulted in tragic birth defects. But today, it's helped more people than it's hurt as a treatment for leprosy.... 5th mug of coffee down and I'm out the door... catch ya later....zoooooooom
-
Hmmm...so a certain amount of bad is justified by some amount of good? Seems like that justifies the dropping of the A-bombs to me.
I don't think scientific advancement is a myth. I just think we need to be more responsible about it. The problem is that when investers invest money they expect a return rather quickly. Responsible science is not fast and certainly does not realistically operate on a time-table. Polution and its effect on us is growing all the time...global warming is becoming reality. It took a long time, but folks turn a blind eye to the truth and sacrifice the future for the present. The stuff in our food here in the US (like MSG) makes people fat and unhealthy. There are other additives that have similar effects in many of our processed foods. Companies put dangerous carcenogens in cigarettes for years so they could "hook" their customers more easily and thouroughly. Yeah, science really helps us all out, doesn't it. Sure, there are things that are good as well...I'm not saying there aren't. But irresponsibility with peoples lives and the environment we all rely upon for survival is the norm, I'm afraid.
-
The republican government, the more religious and to an extent "anti-science" side, is the one that doesn't use modern scientific methods to improve the environment. We have better ways of doing things but it's conservatism that keeps us from moving ahead. Our dependence on fossil fuels and lack of more stringent pollutant controls are a good example of us sitting on old technology because the oil companies and big businesses say so. If we were more accepting to change such issues would not be a problem. And don't tell me that we never should have started researching at all, because before the Industrial Revolution the average lifestyle was far from great. People worked constantly on inefficient farms away from culture, without the aid of machinery and innovative farm implements, then progress happened and we had consumer products and more efficient ways of getting work done, allowing for more personal resources to the average person. We also realized that the burning of coal (and other fossil fuels) spewed out tons of carbon and gases and we began to find more clean ways of dealing with that without taking a step backwards. Now, the government is afraid to continue making such improvements through the Republicans (discluding the recent turn on events) in the name of conservatism. I wouldn't be wrong to consider you to be a Republican would I? If you are, then your statement about the environment and corporations being evil is contradictory to what you vote for.
As for smoking, yah, innovation has led to some nasty ways of doing things like that. But we also have learned of such chemicals as ammonia, a main ingredient in fertilizer, and we learnt what those carcinogens are so as to not misuse them (as smoking continues to decline due to better education as we try to get rid of it without restricting the freedom of choice).
As far as diet goes, many Americans had very high saturated fat diets before many of the artificial additives. Such animals as pigs and further to the west, cows, were a major part of the American diet, too big perhaps. As we continue to learn about the essential things we need in our diet, we gain the knowledge to improve what we eat. Did you know that our diets have improved as far as saturated fat content goes since earlier in the century? Unfortunately, I believe sodium has gone up and calorie intake has gone up too much overall.
You're definitely right about the whole problem with corporate funding not always having the best of intentions, but that's why we need government funding (not supported as much by a right wing government). Then the incentive is less for profit and more for the general well being of the people, leading to less likelihood for misuse.
There have been many advancements to improve pollution and our negative impact on the environment, yet we refuse to implement such measures for some reason BECAUSE of a conservative attitude. A quick fix at the cost of pollution and waste has become the norm in society, and it will take progress in values and technology to change that.
-
are you suggesting that people who work to INTENTIONALLY harm people taint the entire group?does that only apply to science or does it include industry, religion and pollitics?
-
It's not the conservative attitude, in my opinion. It's the big business' behind what you call conservatives. Conservativism without the encumberance of big business charts the right course...after all, what does it mean to be conservative? It originally meant to be cautious with change, linked to common sense. Big business has developed it into resistance to change that, in our case, stymies the efforts of big business to make money...such as those pesky anti-pollution measures (that are never enforced except on the general populace) that might cause big business to cough up some money to (hold your breath) evoke change!As far as my personal affiliations to any specific party, I have none. I don't vote unless there is somebody worth voting for. Last presidential candidate I voted for was Perot...hasn't been anybody worth voting for since, in my opinion. What I liked about Perot is that he was a patriot who had too much money to be bought by big business. Why did he pull out on a whim? (The first time) My guess, although I can't support it, is that they (big business) threated him or (most likely) his family with bodily harm. Big business has no scruples what-so-ever...and THAT is what should scare you.
-
What I liked about Perot is that he was a patriotUnlike all those other guys, who were...what? Traitors?> Why did he pull out on a whim?He was rather unstable. What he was unable to abide is that being the president is not like being the CEO. You can't just say say "I'm doing X" and make it so. Perot was an autocrat, and that's not how government works -- and fortunately so.> Big business has no scruples what-so-ever...and THAT is what should scare you.Publicly-owned businessses have one responsibility: to make the most money possible for their shareholders. That is their fidiuciary responsibility under the law. In fact, it could be argued, it's their responsibility to violate the law in pursuit of profits, if there's a good chance they can get away with it (or if the profit outweighs the penalty).That's why it has been so pathetically bad for the country that Bush's people have dismantled a lot of the reguatory mechanisms of the federal government. Businesses have run amok. Lobbyists for corporations are writing federal regulations.The pollution issue is more one of politics than science. If pollution is not a priority to the federal government, it's not going to be a priority for corporations.Most every invention can be used for bad purposes. You can kill someone with a dinner fork. Heating systems can burn down houses. Automobiles crash, and people die. Airplanes crash too.I'm not sure about the dinner fork, but for the other inventions and many others, further technological development will make them safer. Airplane travel is a lot safer than it was 30 years ago (now that flying is more automated), and it will become safer yet in the future.We need to keep straigth the difference between basic scientific research and applied technology. The distinction is very important.
-
In reply to:
If what they come up with cures cancer but kills 50% of the patients in the process and makes the others sterile, yes, I'd call that irresponsible.
Are you saying that it would be irresponsible of them to create this "cure" or to administer it? Because this may come as a shock to you but if such a "cure" was ever invented, it would never be administered nor willingly received. It would simply be seen as a failed attempt and they would start again.
In reply to:
It originally meant to be cautious with change, linked to common sense.
And how does that apply to stem-cell research? What is there to be cautious about? A dead fetus bitch-slapping us when we try to get to heaven? What kind of common sense is that?
-
"...it would never be administered nor willingly received."
Wanna bet?
-
As I asked before, do you have a specific example in mind, or are you speaking hyothetically?You could logically make the same criticisms about churches that you do of science. Some are cults that do little more than take people's money. Some are death cults. And then there's Scientology, in a class by itself. Some teach intolerance and hatred (e.g., Christian Identity churches in the U.S., (madrassas) in the Middle East and the West). Some in the U.S. claim tax exemption, yet act as an arm of the Republican party, instruction their members who to vote for (which technically should cause the church to lose its tax-exempt status, but in reality there is very little enforcement). And then there's the Catholic Church's inability and unwillingness to keep their priests hands off the young members of the church.It sounds like the churches need more regulation than science does, following your logic.And you still seem to be confusing basic scientific research with engineered applications of science.
-
In reply to: Wanna bet? Yes, yes I do. We live in the age of information, something as important as a cure for cancer would be examined and scrutinized by hundreds of other scientists. So even on the very very very small chance that some evil doctor invented this cure for cancer knowing that it killed half of the people its given to, it would never be released as a cure. If not on this evil scientist's moral grounds, then to protect his own reputation because other scientists will find out what it does and stop it.So please, stop bringing up idiotic points. The world does not work in the way that you think it does. Those crazy atheist scientists do have morals and so many of them are devoting their entire lives to literally save the world.
-
Think a little, Steve. In order to avoid man's (not God's) church, all you need to do is say "No". That's it...pretty simple. The key is knowing the difference. Study the Bible, and it becomes clear (if, and only if, you are truly searching for answers). Scientific research run amuck is a completely different animal. They don't search for answers...they search for ways to make money at the least amount of cost and in the shortest amount of time. Doesn't sound like a good combination to me. And when they pollute the nations natural water supply so we can't drink it, then turn around and charge us (bottled water) to clean it up, I don't think it's right. Has any form of religion polluted our water supplies lately?
-
church=moneyor haven't you noticed
