Can Science (Knowledge) Save Mankind?

[pljames]

Can science(knowledge) save mankind? If the world has been here six sixty or six thousand years why hasn't man been seeking peace instead of destruction? It would seem philosophy psychology and all the disciplines even science has failed to achieve peace through philosophy and all the disciplines. It seems mans true nature is the total destruction of the planet he lives on. One rock can kill one person a atomic bomb millions this is mans intelligence after six sixty or six hundred thousand years? Look at the world today is peace a agenda no just talk about it just like the economies of the world. Talk no action and people still die from there philosophies and disciplines they created.

 

Can man ever wake up from his stupidity after centuries of wars and destruction of this planet? He has concreted his belief of power and greed as his world destroy's itself. The sad part is innocent people will suffer and die while man fiddles. Thoughts please. Paul/pljames

[Kriminal99]

Not if we can't identify people who have knowledge.

[Guest MacPhee]

Can science(knowledge) save mankind? If the world has been here six sixty or six thousand years why hasn't man been seeking peace instead of destruction? It would seem philosophy psychology and all the disciplines even science has failed to achieve peace through philosophy and all the disciplines.

 

Can man ever wake up from his stupidity after centuries of wars and destruction of this planet?

 

Do humans really want peace? Seems to me, that they prefer a good fight. A real bust-up: fists flying, swords clashing, machine-guns rattling, bombs bursting - real "action"! Otherwise, how do you account for the huge popularity of war-films/games? Let's face it - we humans basically enjoy wars. That's why we've always kept starting them.

 

Fortunately for our future development, Science has come to the rescue. It has created nuclear weapons. These are so devastating, so destructive, that they rule out any really big wars, like World Wars. This is proved by these facts:

 

1. World War I, started in 1914, ended in 1918. And just 21 years later, we got:

2. World War II, started in 1939, ended in 1945.

 

So World War III should have started in about 1966 - like in Pal's "The Time Machine".

 

But it didn't. Why is that? Because of nuclear weapons, obviously. They made everyone, especially politicians, realise the consequences of a full-scale war conducted with such weapons. It might result in the end of civilisation - and hence in the end of the politicians' power.

 

Therefore we can be confident that all future wars will be strictly localised events. Confined to individual countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Mali. Of course we will continue to enjoy fighting each other. But there'll be no more World Wars - because no politician will dare start one.

 

And isn't that thanks to Science?

Edited January 18, 2013 by MacPhee

[Moontanman]

Can science(knowledge) save mankind? If the world has been here six sixty or six thousand years why hasn't man been seeking peace instead of destruction? It would seem philosophy psychology and all the disciplines even science has failed to achieve peace through philosophy and all the disciplines. It seems mans true nature is the total destruction of the planet he lives on. One rock can kill one person a atomic bomb millions this is mans intelligence after six sixty or six hundred thousand years? Look at the world today is peace a agenda no just talk about it just like the economies of the world. Talk no action and people still die from there philosophies and disciplines they created.

 

Can man ever wake up from his stupidity after centuries of wars and destruction of this planet? He has concreted his belief of power and greed as his world destroy's itself. The sad part is innocent people will suffer and die while man fiddles. Thoughts please. Paul/pljames

 

 

Human culture has progressed greatly in the last few thousand years, from conquering your neighbor and either killing them all, man woman and child to selling them into slavery 3500 years ago to modern western civilization where such a thing is unthinkable. We have progressed but you have to study history to see how far we have come from our savage past...

[Guest Aemilius]

"Human culture has progressed greatly in the last few thousand years...."

Edited January 20, 2013 by Aemilius

[Moontanman]

"Human culture has progressed greatly in the last few thousand years...."

 

 

What is the point of this post?

[Guest Aemilius]

"Human culture has progressed greatly in the last few thousand years...."

 

Moontanman "What is the point of this post?"

 

Just that I think you must be looking at the world through some seriously rose colored glasses.

 

Moontanman "Human culture has progressed greatly in the last few thousand years...."

 

Has it? Science and technology may have progressed greatly in the last few thousand years.... not so sure about culture.

 

Moontanman "....from conquering your neighbor and either killing them all, man woman and child to selling them into slavery 3500 years ago to modern western civilization where such a thing is unthinkable."

 

I don't see that at all. There's been plenty of conquering and killing going on all along and slavery is alive and well from what I can see.

 

Moontanman "We have progressed but you have to study history to see how far we have come from our savage past...."

 

Yeah, right. Is it no longer savage because the savagery is being accomplished technologically now instead of manually as in the past?

Edited January 23, 2013 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

What.... no snappy comeback Moontanman?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Aemilius

[Moontanman]

I never argue with idiots, they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience...

[Guest Aemilius]

Moontanman "I never argue with idiots, they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience..."

 

Translation.... "I can't back up anything I said in my post so I'll just resort to name calling."

Edited January 28, 2013 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

MacPhee "Do humans really want peace? Seems to me, that they prefer a good fight. A real bust-up: fists flying, swords clashing, machine-guns rattling, bombs bursting - real "action"! Otherwise, how do you account for the huge popularity of war-films/games? Let's face it - we humans basically enjoy wars. That's why we've always kept starting them."

 

Right.... That's why colonization of the moon, mars or anywhere else we go is probably doomed. Wherever we go we'll be taking all that and a bunch of other genetically hard wired baggage with us!

 

MacPhee "Fortunately for our future development, Science has come to the rescue. It has created nuclear weapons. These are so devastating, so destructive, that they rule out any really big wars, like World Wars."

 

Maybe no more World Wars, but there's no shortage now of people lusting after martyrdom who'd be more than willing to strap on a nuclear/dirty bomb and make their way into the middle of a large city to detonate it.... it's really just a matter of time.

 

MacPhee "This is proved by these facts:

 

1. World War I, started in 1914, ended in 1918. And just 21 years later, we got:

2. World War II, started in 1939, ended in 1945.

 

So World War III should have started in about 1966...."

 

I don't think that the time elapsed between the two World Wars so far could be used as any kind of standard for predicting if/when the next one will start. Just because there are two earthquakes six months apart doesn't necessarily mean there should be an earthquake every six months.

 

MacPhee "Therefore we can be confident that all future wars will be strictly localised events. Confined to individual countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Mali. Of course we will continue to enjoy fighting each other. But there'll be no more World Wars - because no politician will dare start one."

 

We'll see about that. You must think politicians are much smarter than I do!

Edited January 28, 2013 by Aemilius

[Moontanman]

Moontanman "I never argue with idiots, they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience..."

 

Translation.... "I can't back up anything I said in my post so I'll just resort to name calling."

 

 

I see no reason what so ever to engage a troll, you cannot back up your statements so you try to set me up with a straw man. I never said things were perfect or that savagery did not happen in modern times but if you think things are no any better than they were 3500 years ago or 500 years ago or even 50 years ago you are not paying attention... The over all trend is toward individual human rights and away from things like slavery and genocide, even warfare is no longer targeting citizens when as recent as in WW2 that was the expectation. Now we actually design weapons to limit civilian casualties. Are things perfect... No obviously not and I do not expect them to ever be perfect and I did not suggest they were but at least now it's not standard warfare to enslave the enemy or kill them all man woman and child and settle in their land.

 

Now, you made several assertions you failed to back up with anything other a stupid picture of rose colored glasses, your turn troll...

[Deepwater6]

Some very good points Moontanman, things are by no means perfect, but advances in medical technology, travel safety, food & drug safety to name a few, have come a long way from hundreds of years ago.

 

The OP asks "Can Science Save Mankind" as if it's a civic duty for Science to do so. Science may indeed save mankind one day or it may be the catalyst for it's downfall. Such as the accidental release of a deadly virus being studied.

[Moontanman]

Some very good points Moontanman, things are by no means perfect, but advances in medical technology, travel safety, food & drug safety to name a few, have come a long way from hundreds of years ago.

 

The OP asks "Can Science Save Mankind" as if it's a civic duty for Science to do so. Science may indeed save mankind one day or it may be the catalyst for it's downfall. Such as the accidental release of a deadly virus being studied.

 

 

The OP's question is more than a bit leading IMHO. Yes science can save mankind it can also destroy mankind, ultimately science is only a tool what we use it for is what matters, nuclear weapons or nuclear power, bio warfare or medicine, science is not good or bad, it is what we make it.

 

I think the age of reason is by it's self a big plus for humanity and while science is a big part of the age of reason and why things are better now than they were I don't think it can be asserted as the only reason. Decoupling religion from it's place of pretty much unquestioned power has had a huge positive effect on our culture.

 

Rule of law has to be acknowledged as a big part of the increase in the quality of life as well...

[Guest Aemilius]

Moontanman "I see no reason what so ever to engage a troll.... "

 

Oh goody, more name calling.... thanks for opening the door Moosebreathboy! You may not like my assessment of your opinion, and you may even consider using an image as being provocative or inflammatory, but I don't think it falls to the level of being a troll.... not to the same degree as name calling anyway, which at least falls to the level of being a bit of a bully.

 

Moontanman "....you cannot back up your statements so you try to set me up with a straw man."

 

Translation.... "Since I can't/won't back up what I said, even in a general way, I'll just go ahead and accuse the other guy of not being able to back up what he says and of trying to set me up." Really though, no such sinister machinations here, and I'll try to back up my point of view in this post as best I can (let me know if I miss anything).

 

Moontanman "....I never said things were perfect or that savagery did not happen in modern times but if you think things are no any better than they were 3500 years ago or 500 years ago or even 50 years ago you are not paying attention...."

 

Well, nobody said things were better back then, and nobody said that there's no savagery in modern times or that things are perfect now or that they think they will be any time soon either, so.... What's the deal man? Still recovering from that hemispherectomy? Anyway, it actually could be argued that though things may not have been any better 3500 years ago than they are now, on many levels things are actually much, much worse now than they were back then, and that that trend continues....

 

Let's see now.... 3500 years ago man was warlike, territorial, competitive rather than cooperative and largely driven by hard wired instinctual impulses (just like all the other mammals), but he existed in harmony with nature for the most part without causing or leaving behind any serious damage or noteworthy long term environmental impacts.

 

Today, man is warlike, territorial, competitive rather than cooperative and largely driven by hard wired instinctual impulses (just like all the other mammals).... but he no longer exists in harmony with nature and has caused catstrophic damage, leaving behind devastating long term environmental impacts.

 

Comparing then to now, it's pretty clear that neither scenario could really be considered ideal.... but one is clearly much worse than the other. Can you tell which is worse?

 

Moontanman "The over all trend is toward individual human rights and away from things like slavery and genocide...."

 

I'm pretty sure the overall trend among all the various peoples of the world down through history has always been to demand greater individual human rights and to move away from slavery and genocide.... it doesn't seem to be working out so well.

 

Moontanman "....even warfare is no longer targeting citizens when as recent as in WW2 that was the expectation."

 

Oh, I think there are more recent examples.... How about Operation Menu in 1969? You know, the secret indiscriminate "carpet bombing" of entire regions of Laos and Cambodia that targeted rural farmers? And what about the subsequent thorough hosing down that Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia got for a full decade with over 20,000,000 gallons of Agent Orange (and the lesser known Agent Blue) from 1961 to 1971 during "Operation Ranch Hand" that continued to target rural farmers? And how about all the innocent people in Iraq, Afganistan and the middle east in general now doomed to breath in swirling clouds of powdered (known to be) toxic metal dust created by the use of thousands of tons of depleted uranium for about the next four and a half billion years (backing up what I said about plenty of killing)? Hmmm.... doesn't match up at all well with your lofty assessment of what's currently thinkable or unthinkable in modern Rome.... oops, sorry.... I meant modern western civilization. I always get those two mixed up!

 

Moontanman "Now we actually design weapons to limit civilian casualties."

 

Unless weapons are being used defensively their design characteristics are really kind of a non-issue, don't you think? Weapons designed to limit civilian casualties may be a noble undertaking, but it's nothing more than a hollow gesture in the most recent conflicts, since the U.S. was never attacked but was instead the attacker that invaded Iraq based on false information apparently cooked up by the United States and Great Britain. In my opinion the illegality of it effectively renders anyone killed (soldier or civilian) a murder victim if killed intentionally or a victim of manslaughter if killed unintentionally, whether by bullets, missiles, bombs.... or depleted uranium. Same for Afghanistan, where the obvious Twin Towers false flag fiasco was used as a pretext for invasion and subsequent occupation. Estimates vary (depending on where one looks) from between about a half a million to one and a half million dead/murdered in just Iraq alone from U.S. guns, bombs and missiles (further backing up what I said about plenty of killing).

 

Moontanman "Are things perfect... No obviously not and I do not expect them to ever be perfect and I did not suggest they were...."

 

Good. Done now defending yourself against imaginary accusations nobody made about things you never suggested?

 

Moontanman "....but at least now it's not standard warfare to enslave the enemy or kill them all man woman and child and settle in their land."

 

Not sure how you define "standard warfare" but, right (sort of), it's no longer "....standard warfare to enslave the enemy or kill them all man woman and child and settle in their land." anymore (except for Israel maybe). The need for manual slave labor isn't what it used to be, technology now largely fills that need much more efficiently in the form of mechanization and automation. Even so, there are more slaves now than ever before (backing up what I said about there being plenty of slavery) and with over seven billion people now there're plenty of low wage slaves available to go around.

 

The new dynamic, rather, would seem to consist of invasion and subsequent occupation (simply ignoring or displacing the local population if they get in the way) for the purpose of relieving the invaded country of its natural resources, like the oil in Iraq that the oil companies companies have been quietly sucking up at just a $1.40 a barrel, or the trillion dollar plus treasure trove of natural resources in Afghanistan, and the secret granting of hundreds of mining contracts over the last decade or so that are only now coming to light.

 

Moontanman "Now, you made several assertions you failed to back up...."

 

Asked and answered.

 

Moontanman "....with anything other a stupid picture of rose colored glasses...."

 

Was it really just a stupid picture of rose colored glasses, or are you just too stupid to figure out its incredibly simple message.... "looking at the world through rose colored glasses"? Never mind.... if you had to ask what it meant that answers the question.

 

Moontanman "The OP's question is more than a bit leading IMHO. Yes science can save mankind it can also destroy mankind...."

 

Looks to me (opinion) like science has been doing a lot more of one than the other right from the start.... dramatically improving the lot of a relatively small percentage of humanity even as it increasingly threatens the very foundation of all or most life on the planet.

 

Moontanman "....ultimately science is only a tool what we use it for is what matters, nuclear weapons or nuclear power...."

 

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.... Nuclear weapons can destroy a lot of human and other life in a short period of time with long term diffuse residual lethality, and nuclear power can destroy a lot of human and other life in a short period of time (like the thirty-five percent infant mortality spike along the west coast of North America following the Fukushima incident) in a short period of time with long term diffuse residual lethality.... What's the difference? Nuclear power is actually a perfect example of science being applied in a way that benefits a relatively small percentage of the global population while threatening the entire population at the same time (including those it appears to benefit).

 

I think I've reasonably suported my view here that there's still plenty of slavery and killing going on, including "....killing them all, man woman and child" and that it's not only still thinkable in modern western civilization but is still going on right now even more than before, since, with the continued use of things like depleted uranium the killing process has actually been exquisitely refined. Our actions are now not only killing people in the present, but will continue to be "....killing them all, man woman and child" literally forever.... man, that's a lot of killing!

 

Moontanman "....your turn troll..."

 

Your turn you little name calling bully.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Aemilius