🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>> Such words accurately describe the existential problem 
>>>> of modernity
>>>> as it overtook the certitude and meaningfulness that 
>>>> tradition offered,
>
> Including certitudes such as "Anyone not of our tribe is our 
> enemy and must be killed" and "The earth is the center of 
> the universe and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and must 
> be punished."  Not all tradition, certitude, and 
> meaningfulness is good or even useful.

Nor am I interested in anti-natural traditions, though it seems
scientists like to throw examples from a variety of insane cultures
as a way of distracting from their faults.

>>>> as well as the deliberation that weighed all 
>>>> possibilities and avoided
>>>> drastic imbalances. That type of thinking has been 
>>>> eroded and lost.
>
> Nonsense.  It's still there.  Innovation, whether by science 
> and technology or by other means, has been continually 
> forcing mankind to examine its existing traditions in the 
> light of new knowledge.  Not surprisingly, tradition 
> therefore is continually being revised, by discarding some 
> of it, modifying some of it, and by adding new components. 
> The only difference now is that such changes have been 
> happening at a faster pace because of science and 
> technology.

The changes have undermined the stable society that tradition
once nurtured. The norm today is chaos, distraction, and a desire
for short-term goals. This is not the method of the past.

>> Most minds in the modern world are incapable of 
>> considering the harm of their actions.
>
> More absolutist rant.

If you think most people are responsible, then do you think an
anarchy of individualism would be a good idea? According to your
position each person would be a wise governor of themselves and
a responsible world citizen.

>> Therefore harm must be preemptively stopped by preventing
>> potentially harmful possibilities from being performed on 
>> a wide scale.
>
> More nonsense, when stated in your absolutist manner.  Would 
> we have been better off if cavemen had refused to utilize 
> the ability to create and use fire?  Even if they had been 
> able to imagine its negative future implications (uses) - 
> which they weren't - any attempt to stifle or even limit its 
> use would have, and should have been been ignored in light 
> of its benefits for them.  Even now, with the benefit of 
> full hindsight knowledge, no rational person is going to say 
> that on balance, we'd be better off without it.

Your caveman with fire example is more absolutist nonsense.
Looking even to the last century, the proliferation of chemicals
presumably for the "benefit" of mankind has resulting in great
harm to health with little or no real benefit, though much profit
was made. You and others want to dismiss scientists from the
consequences of their creations, but it seems the invention of
new chemical compounds should be an especially conservative and
carefully measured process. Instead, scientists have no problem
rushing new chemicals into society and rarely apply the brakes.
This makes it more difficult to undo later so we all suffer.

> Okay, now we're back to something that has a kernal of 
> accuracy.  Innovators of science ("scientists") and their 
> products inherently are neither good nor evil.

Good and evil are fictional categories. I prefer to discuss
what is sensible and what is foolish. A basic test for categorization
is whether there has been considerable forethought and whether there
has been an effort to learn from past mistakes to avoid repeating
foolish patterns.

> 2. Advocating it purely for perceived benefits to society 
> (which would include the further advancement of science).

To measure whether a new invention is a benefit or not requires
knowing how much of a negative it introduces. For example, a new
chemical might solve a particular problem of medium severity but
introduce side effects of high severity. Or a short clinical trial
might show a short-term gain, but a long-term increase in cancer.
In any case, rigorous testing is necessary, but history shows that
this is not something scientists are thorough or considerate
enough to undertake.

> First of all, should scientists even bear a responsibility 
> of anticipating the consequences?  It's not like no one else 
> ever is going to make the same discovery.  The universe is 
> what it is and it doesn't care who unmasks a part of it or 
> when; it's going to happen.  If I discover something and 
> thren suppress it, it will come out sometime, somewhere.

Would it be terribly difficult for a scientist to document
harmful possibilities as part of standard risk analysis?
Upon the next iteration of that item's creation, the known and
likely harm of it would already be known.

> This is a tangential argument to the discussion, but the 
> timing and by whom it is discovered can be important.  To 
> put it in concrete if selfish terms, nuclear power was going 
> to be discovered, period.  When that happened, I'd rather 
> that it be by us than by some entity that wouldn't hesitate 
> to use it on us first.

It sounds like you are a victim of political propaganda. Do you
really think that other entities have such a death wish that they
would want to attack your group just so they could kill it a few
minutes before they are liquidated?

> And if there were to be some kind of 
> political limitation on the discovery of nuclear power, who 
> do you think is more likely to comply with such 
> restrictions?

> The U.S. is blessed with a traditional values 
> system that makes it more likely that nuclear power will not 
> be abused.  Other nations do not subscribe to the same 
> traditional values.  If that rings any chimes for you with 
> respect to certain recent events in the news, it was 
> deliberate.

I don't think the U.S. has any claim to traditional values. While
there is a war taking place to suppress Muslims, Paul Craig Roberts
explains it with the best insight I've seen.

> And what is the alternative?  Apply brakes to scientific and 
> technological innovation?  If we do that, who is the judge 
> and jury?  The scienific community?  No, you've already 
> condemned them.  So it must be society at large.  But which 
> of society's "traditional values" will you apply?  Those of 
> Southern Baptists?  Roman Catholics?  Fundamentalist 
> Moslems?  Animists?  Creationists?  The "Intelligent Design" 
> crowd?  Secular humanists?

Society's traditional values have been destroyed and with it the
raw materials to promote society. Looking at the cultural framework,
about 150 years ago we began a sudden drop in people capable of
writing philosophy or music, though a few echos appeared until about
1900. Civilization still produces a few works of quality literature,
but it should be alarming that we have traded Beethoven for Britney
Spears and Schopenhauer for Coulter. Instead of detailed, prolonged
discussions about a great work of thought that has emerged in our
lifetimes, even educated people babble on about the sitcom or movie
they watched last night.

> I listed forms of religion here because they are the 
> wellspring and guardians of most of any society's 
> "traditional values".

Some religions claim "traditional values", but I am focusing on
the philosophical tradition that includes Socrates and Aurelius,
which is a pre-Christian culture without much interest in mysticism
or middle eastern mythology and neurosis.

> Furthermore, since "applying the 
> brakes" would of necessity be a political process, look at 
> the U.S. Congress or any other nation's legislative bodies 
> and consider how religious values (no matter how ridiculous) 
> dominate their actions.  You can't escape the role of 
> religion here, so be careful what  you wish for.

I see no solution through middle eastern religions, nor do I consider
them part of the Indo-European tradition. They are a recent and foreign
influence that is not congruent with traditionalism.

> Let me introduce an analogy here, i.e., freedom of speech. 
> The parallels are almost entirely congruent.  Speech can 
> lead, and has led to all sorts of evils.

I don't believe in evils. There is only propaganda that casts its
opponents as devils, but this has nothing to do with reality.

> In fact, it's hard 
> to imagine a negative societal action or consequence that 
> does not require free speech at some point to allow it to 
> propagate and act.  Religious persecution, racial violence, 
> domestic violence, all the way up to the Hitlers and the 
> Stalins, none of this could have happened if we had been 
> sufficiently smart to know when and where someone's ability 
> to speak to a public should have been curtailed or 
> prohibited.

You are talking like a world policeman dreaming of enforcing the
status quo, which seems a strange position to take when you are
also arguing for technological "innovations" to be given freedom
to be put into society without limitation.

> Yet one of the greatest "traditional values" of our society 
> (it is, after all, enshrined along with freedom of religion 
> in the very First Amendment) has been to favor and even 
> guarantee freedom of speech even in the certain knowledge 
> that from time to time, it will not only allow, but 
> facilitate the perpetration of evils.

If you get away from mythologizing ideas and actions as "evils", you
will find natural thinking allows a more clear analysis of such events
and allows you to understand a broader context.

> I could go on at length with this analogy, but let me simply 
> note that you are in fact arguing for a form of suppression 
> of free speech.

If a restoration of health could be achieved in exchange for
suppressing free speech, that seems a successful gain. How much
more do we need a suppression of sperm rates from chemicals or
increase in cancer just so that all people can have potentially
harmful opinions voiced?

>>> And having created fire, then, Scientists are to blame 
>>> for every person
>>> who hasn't frozen to death in midwinter, as well as for 
>>> every house
>>> that's ever burned down due to Recklessness.
>>
>> Did all people freeze to death before the formalization of 
>> the scientific
>> method? You are presenting silly strawmen.
>
> No, you are dodging the point.  Mankind acquired knowledge 
> and applied it (including its negtive consequences) well 
> before the scietific method.

I think there is a significant difference between knowledge
and science. It is important to use precise terminology.

His argument claimed the use of fire required science, though
it seems odd to call someone a scientists before the scientific
method was used. Further, to talk of the necessity of fire for
keeping people from freezing is absurd since clearly some people
were able to avoid freezing without requiring the use of fire.

>> Speculating on hypotheticals does not absolve scientists 
>> of blame for the very real harm of what they created and unleashed 
>> on society.
>
> Implying that the changes against which you rail would not 
> have occurred absent science is pure speculation on your 
> part.

Ah, so scientists are mere victims of ushering into society what
someone else would just as easily do later?

>>>> 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.
>
> So what should they do?  Shut down the labs?

Maybe they can reflect upon how the creations of the scientific
community have create the disastrous situation the scientists now
realize is a result of their recklessness.

>> My case is against the recklessness of scientists who are 
>> clearly unfit for intellectual leadership
>
> "Intellectual leadership" is a political process, not a 
> scientific one.

Intellect is hardly found in politics. Thought leaders are known by
their ideas, not by the acknowledgment of political organizations.
Merely appointing someone a leader does not provide them with ideas,
but someone who has ideas eventually becomes known as the intellectual
leader within that community.

> The culprit actually is the *traditional values* system that 
> you so greatly extol here.  What we really need to do is 
> modify and strengthen our tranditional values system, both 
> for the individual and for our societal mechanisms, so that 
> we can minimize the probability of abusing new scientific 
> knowledge.

It is a shame that traditional values have been effectively removed
from society and replaced with pretense and ignorance. They could
have prevented many mistakes and given a direction for avoiding the
endless repetitions of further mistakes.

> So who are the "long-term thinkers" who ought to be in 
> charge of all this?  Be specific here.  No hand-waving 
> general declarations.  Exactly who would decide the 
> standards and how would they be set?

It seems strange that you expect me to provide a list for a theoretical
subcommittee based on a statement in a USENET post that long-term thinking
must be favored over short-term thinking.

> We already have 
> accepted the fact that except in extremely limited 
> circumstances, we are better off if speech is not curtailed, 
> in part because of the "who shall watch the watchman?" 
> argument.  Who is going to ride herd on the scientists?

It requires a change in the ethics of science, though it is not clear
that scientists understand that the vast social consequences of their
work needs to be done with greater consideration.

>>> Every person competent to be called a scientist has had a 
>>> fairly clear
>>> vision of the paths in the futures and in most cases have 
>>> done their
>>> very best to have no unintended consequences, insofar as 
>>> they could
>>> control matters.
>>
>> Are you saying scientists are too stupid to realize that a 
>> combustion
>> engine produces exhaust, or that reliance on a 
>> non-replenishable fuel
>> resource is an obvious form of short-term thinking?
>
> That's not what I got from his statement.

He claimed scientists considered the future, but it seems even
basic creations like the gasoline engine were given no thought
beyond the immediate.

>> How do you excuse
>> scientists from the reckless consequences of their 
>> creations without
>> proclaiming them incapable of managing their own 
>> discoveries?
>
> How do you excuse the creators and enforcers of the more 
> odious "traditional values" of society for not foreseeing 
> and being constrained by the reckless consequences?  How do 
> you fault them for being incapable of managing their own 
> doctrines?

Societies that once had traditional values were displaced by
modernity which has no understanding of the harmony of the past.

> The scientist is not resposible for the consequeces of his 
> discovery or how it is used by society

That says enough about why scientists should be disqualified from
any position of social responsibility. The scientist is an anarchist
or hired gun without any social contract.

It should be obvious why the scientist as sociopath is dangerous
and should be oppressed or eliminated. The gentlest way to do this
is with a new ethical formulation that requires social responsibility,
but your answer suggests more radical means could be required.

>>> Eradicating smallpox was a very good thing to do. 
>>> Eradicating smallpox
>>> while refusing to allow funding of education about 
>>> birthcontrol methods
>>> was an insane thing to do.
>>
>> Precisely whom needs to be educated? Western, one 
>> Christian nations, are
>> generally below a replenishing birthrate and aren't 
>> contributing to
>> overpopulation. How do you propose "educating" the third 
>> world to reduce
>> birthrates against their national interests? You must 
>> imagine yourself
>> to have some kind of powerful and clever international 
>> lobby.
>
> So a consequence of your argument here (unintended by you, 
> but nevertheless there) is that since we can't educate the 
> entire world on the consequences of smallpox vaccine on 
> fertility and life span-ratios, we'd be better off in the 
> long run if we had suppressed the vaccine.

Yes. The application of a technology is rarely effective as an
isolated event. When bringing first-world technology to the third
world, you will get very different results than in the first-world
because the context is entirely different.

The original poster said (correctly) that overpopulation could
be avoided if smallpox and education were offered together. When
things like vaccines or food are provided to overpopulated areas
but are not accompanies by birth-reduction propaganda ("education")
then it is not hard to see why overpopulation results.

Though the idea of reducing death makes some religious people feel
good, the long-term consequences of overpopulation mean a larger
suffering later.

>> In case you're unfamiliar, here are Europe's projected 
>> 2007 fertility rates
>> from www.census.gov:
>
> Irrelevant, except to the extent that they support an 
> elitist argument that we should only give smallpox and other 
> vaccines to the Europeans and certain other nations if we're 
> worried about worldwide overpopulation.  "We know how to 
> control our breeding, they don't."

The original poster was talking about Christian nations which
are mostly European and don't seem to have an overpopulation problem.

If people are concerned with overpopulation, the scientific
facilitation of it seems irresponsible.

Since humans are consuming resources at a rate exceeding what the
earth can replenish, and developing nations are increasing consumption,
it seems wise to reduce access to scientific "solutions" that would
allow these populations to continue growth that dooms all humanity.