🚀 go-pugleaf

>> The destructive power of science is not limited to two devastating World
>> Wars, nuclear weapons, and the rape of the environment. Advocates of
>> scientific primacy like to associate science with morality but can only
>> argue that the redeeming virtue of science lies in its potential ability
>> to provide material comfort and plenty for all, and bring about an
>> increasing equality of human condition. Such misguided notions are just
>> another example of our own lack of purpose and consequent moral bewilderment. 
>
>Using words like "moral bewilderment" is both religious and demogoguery

Such words accurately describe the existential problem of modernity
as it overtook the certitude and meaningfulness that tradition offered,
as well as the deliberation that weighed all possibilities and avoided
drastic imbalances. That type of thinking has been eroded and lost.

> I subscribe to _Nature_, which is a peer-reviewed journal in which one 
> sees all sorts of research. Yet the editorial slant of _Nature_ is 
> pretty much the opposite of what you describe. Indeed, they constantly 
> express concern over Global Warming and the need for energy sources 
> alternative to those which are flooding the atmosphere with greenhouse 
> gases, and practically every issue contains what amounts to a paen for 
> carbon sequestration.

Who do you think it was who created the methods that contributed to
Global Warming, or rather more accurately Climate Change that brings
us instability greater than mere heating? Who created aerosols? Who
created the processes to refine fuel and the methods to burn fossil
fuels? Are these the faults of sneaky politicians or clever scientists
who invented and discovered?

> If anything, science is lending credence to the theory that things are 
> _not_ allright, and rather than getting better are getting worse.

It is good scientists are finally waking up to the damage caused by
the inventions of scientists. Perhaps they will stop being so reckless
and shortsighted in the future.

> If public officials and opinionistas were to start espousing the scientific 
> viewpoint, perhaps more people would stop breeding like rats, demanding 
> foods that either deplete resources or concentrate likely sources of the 
> next pandemic;

Who created the methods that allow people to breed like rats and
expand beyond the natural limits of their environment? Were these
invented by scientists or politicians?

Who created the methods that allow for greater food production so that
overpopulated regions can be sustained, ensuring a population time bomb?
Were these intelligent exercises the creation of scientists or politicians?

Nature is not mystical, but is a practical reality check. Scientific
efforts to cheat nature on a large scale have resulted in a failing
approach.

> It's not science that made those choices, indeed it would tend to argue 
> against them. It's very easy to support a hypothesis of "waste not, want 
> not".

Of course "science" doesn't make the choice, for it is scientists who
merely want to bring changes into the world without considering their
consequences. As a result, now the use of fossil fuels is available and
people can obtain ridiculous SUVs for mass use and normally unsustainable
populations can be raised to consume nonreplenishing resources and then
have their oversized populations exported for other nations to support.
This is just the beginning of the great wisdom of boundless scientific
discovery working for the purpose of pure knowledge.

A reckless application of knowledge is worse than ignorance.