Climate & religion

[Maeght]

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh? You require a scientific approach  to develop medicines.

Indeed. Sriram is really, in my view, talking about industrialisation, commercialisation, globalisation and presumably capitalism rather than the scientific method. To suggest these come from the rise of atheism seems wrong to me.

[Roses]

Indeed. Sriram is really, in my view, talking about industrialisation, commercialisation, globalisation and presumably capitalism rather than the scientific method. To suggest these come from the rise of atheism seems wrong to me.

He keeps banging on about science and technology being responsible.

[Maeght]

He keeps banging on about science and technology being responsible.

Yes I know. But as I said, in my view, he is really talking about industrialisation, commercialisation, globalisation and presumably capitalism.

[Roses]

Yes I know. But as I said, in my view, he is really talking about industrialisation, commercialisation, globalisation and presumably capitalism.

In which case he should explain himself more clearly.

[Maeght]

In which case he should explain himself more clearly.

He thinks he is talking about science. I don't think he is. Think that's fairly clear.

[Udayana]

It is of course not science itself which has led to pollution etc but the application of science. Human nature, regardless of religious beliefs, has led to exploitation of natural resources and the pursuit of profit. In the Industrial Revolution this was being carried out by men who held religious beliefs on the whole not atheists. Early scientists were on the whole religious people. Your idea that religious beliefs bring some sort of harmony with nature seems fanciful to me. Our problems have arisen due to a lack of understanding of the effects of industrialisation. I don't think people had this 'make merry while you can' approach as this suggests people knew of the consequences but ignored them. People saw science and industry as a way of improving people's lives and building a better society, with individuals of course looking to make themselves rich but many, as I say, held religious beliefs. The consequences are only now being understood.

Good points Maeght, however it is not only technology and industrialization, but agriculture too, because of the deforestation.

One recent study suggests that the sudden cooling in the 17th century was at least partially caused by reforestation in the Americas due to deaths caused by European colonization:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change

The UCL researchers found that the European colonization of the Americas indirectly contributed to this colder period by causing the deaths of about 56 million people by 1600. The study attributes the deaths to factors including introduced disease, such as smallpox and measles, as well as warfare and societal collapse.

Humans, like all animals, affect the environment just by living, but we can take some of the effects into account and do things in ways that help maintain a good balance.

[Udayana]

...
Before technology most people died before the age of about five, the leading cause of death in women was child birth and you couldn’t drink the water for fear of cholera. The way to fix the problems we have now is not to turn the clock back but to embrace technology because it is the only thing capable of saving us.

No, not technology, but more intelligence.

[Maeght]

Good points Maeght, however it is not only technology and industrialization, but agriculture too, because of the deforestation.

One recent study suggests that the sudden cooling in the 17th century was at least partially caused by reforestation in the Americas due to deaths caused by European colonization:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change

Humans, like all animals, affect the environment just by living, but we can take some of the effects into account and do things in ways that help maintain a good balance.

That's interesting. There are so many consequences of how we live that we are unaware of until too late.

[Roses]

He thinks he is talking about science. I don't think he is. Think that's fairly clear.

If you say so.

[Maeght]

If you say so.

I do.

[Roses]

I do.

You might be correct, but you are making an assumption as to what Sriram is actually thinking.

[Nearly Sane]

Good points Maeght, however it is not only technology and industrialization, but agriculture too, because of the deforestation.

One recent study suggests that the sudden cooling in the 17th century was at least partially caused by reforestation in the Americas due to deaths caused by European colonization:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change

Humans, like all animals, affect the environment just by living, but we can take some of the effects into account and do things in ways that help maintain a good balance.

What's happened since the Industrial Revolution is simply a matter of scale. Further given the sheer scale and speed of technological advance, combined with the increase in population in many ways supported by that, it's hard to know what the idea of balance is. Given that the tragedy of the commons seems a default setting, managing that balance across 7 billion people and counting is not something that we are necessarily good at.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[Udayana]

What's happened since the Industrial Revolution is simply a matter of scale. Further given the sheer scale and speed of technological advance, combined with the increase in population in many ways supported by that, it's hard to know what the idea of balance is. Given that the tragedy of the commons seems a default setting, managing that balance across 7 billion people and counting is not something that we are necessarily good at.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Yes, clearly we are rubbish at it - despite having a wiki page on the problem!

All things pass, it's just a question of how much misery is involved.

[Roses]

Yes, clearly we are rubbish at it - despite having a wiki page on the problem!

All things pass, it's just a question of how much misery is involved.

If climate change is as bad as they say it is, and nothing is done to mitigate it, the problem isn't going to pass, but will wreck the planet and destroy much of the life on it.

[Udayana]

If climate change is as bad as they say it is, and nothing is done to mitigate it, the problem isn't going to pass, but will wreck the planet and destroy much of the life on it.

So, all will have been resolved with noone left to worry about it. 

[torridon]

So, all will have been resolved with noone left to worry about it.

and if the projections for the decline in insects bear out, there's not so much point in worrying about climate change as we'll all be dead from starvation anyway by EOC. All that will be left will be the chicken bones

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/

[Udayana]

and if the projections for the decline in insects bear out, there's not so much point in worrying about climate change as we'll all be dead from starvation anyway by EOC. All that will be left will be the chicken bones

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/

Well, when interstellar astronauts finally get here and look into what happened, there is a good chance the chickens will get the blame

[Nearly Sane]

and if the projections for the decline in insects bear out, there's not so much point in worrying about climate change as we'll all be dead from starvation anyway by EOC. All that will be left will be the chicken bones

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/

As an aside this trigger's the memory for me of the Light's Out story by Arch Oboler - The Chicken Heart That Ate the World, which is about the perils of unintended consequences of scientific experiment. Details are in the link below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_Out_(radio_show)

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I am not for a moment suggesting that everything is wrong with Sci & Tech. Of course not!  There are lots of benefits that we have derived from them.  Sci & Tech are not anything by themselves. It is obviously about how humans use them.  But there is clearly something wrong not just in the way we are going about it but also in our basic assumptions and vision.

The 'wonder material' that we invented...plastic...is today the bane of our existence. Pesticides...are destroying insects....and by extension....the whole planet.  Antibiotics...the wonder drugs... are creating super bugs. Radiation from cell phones, satellite TV and other communication networks are probably destroying our health......and much more.

Many of the things that we touted as 'wonder' stuff...are now proving to be disastrous. The life style that many people have adopted is wasteful and almost hedonistic. The problem is with our vision and intent. We are too microscopic and myopic in our thinking. 

[Nearly Sane]

Hi everyone,

I am not for a moment suggesting that everything is wrong with Sci & Tech. Of course not!  There are lots of benefits that we have derived from them.  Sci & Tech are not anything by themselves. It is obviously about how humans use them.  But there is clearly something wrong not just in the way we are going about it but also in our basic assumptions and vision.

The 'wonder material' that we invented...plastic...is today the bane of our existence. Pesticides...are destroying insects....and by extension....the whole planet.  Antibiotics...the wonder drugs... are creating super bugs. Radiation from cell phones, satellite TV and other communication networks are probably destroying our health......and much more.

Many of the things that we touted as 'wonder' stuff...are now proving to be disastrous. The life style that many people have adopted is wasteful and almost hedonistic. The problem is with our vision and intent. We are too microscopic and myopic in our thinking.

Which has nothing to do with science, or indeed religion. We don't have perfect knowledge of outcomes - that's all the above shows. That's a truism.

[Maeght]

You might be correct, but you are making an assumption as to what Sriram is actually thinking.

LR, I'm not sure what your problem with what  I posted is, or why you felt the need to post what you did. If you look back I think it is quite clear. I'm sure you'll want to have the last word in this conversation so feel free but this will be my last comment relating to my initial post.

[jeremyp]

He keeps banging on about science and technology being responsible.

So?

He's been wrong before. He's wrong now. He'll be wrong again.

[jeremyp]

No, not technology, but more intelligence.

Nope. Intelligence is not going to save us unless it results in new technology. For example, intelligence by itself is not going to save the problem of disposing of plastics. How do you propose to solve that issue without new technology?

[Sriram]

I think the problem is more profound than a simple apportionment of blame to the growth of science or to the decline in religion would suggest.  The roots of our downfall have been there all along, the science and the tech merely came along and magnified our abilities for both creation and destruction. Human nature evolved in a time when the world was for all intents and purpose, unlimited. The palaeolithic hunter needing food to feed his family would not have considered wider ecological issues. When we turned farmers, we cleared forests without any concern for biodiversity loss, there was always more forest elsewhere anyway.  And we can trace global warming back to that time, since the beginning of the Holocene we have been gradually reducing the planet's natural carbon storage mechanism through deforestation.  When the Victorians discovered coal it was inevitable that we would exploit it and add to the problem.  This is at the heart of human nature, accounting for both our meteoric rise and our soon to be crash and burn, two sides of the same coin, we exploit resources with great ingenuity with a view to medium and short term gain, but we have little instinctive regard for wider considerations. Similarly, if I saw a child of mine being brutalised in Syria, I would be on the next plane out there. However, I see someone else's child suffering in Syria, and I don't go.  We evolved a nature that prospered in small knit tribal groups with little regard for the wider picture; we didn't evolve to be global citizens and that is what we are now faced with having to try to become.

1. Science and technology are directly implicated in much of the earth's and human problems. I have already highlighted things like plastics, pesticides, radiation, even certain medicines....and many other things. 

2. Besides these products, there is the mindset that science & tech impose on people. A microscopic and zoom-in mindset that by its very nature is shortsighted and incapable of seeing the big picture.

3. On the other hand religion & philosophy impose a wider zoom-out perspective which by its very nature takes a holistic view of things. This broader view generates wisdom and foresight.

4. Science & tech also impose a mindset of power and greed. The impression that we can do anything we want and find a way out of any tricky situation. As I have mentioned earlier, colonizing other planets and getting away from a ruined earth, was one such dream. Hawking actually wrote that we should try to colonize other planets within the next 100 years!! 

5. Religion on the other hand teaches self control and responsibility.  These mindsets do matter enormously on the way we think and live.

[Roses]

1. Science and technology are directly implicated in much of the earth's and human problems. I have already highlighted things like plastics, pesticides, radiation, even certain medicines....and many other things. 

2. Besides these products, there is the mindset that science & tech impose on people. A microscopic and zoom-in mindset that by its very nature is shortsighted and incapable of seeing the big picture.

3. On the other hand religion & philosophy impose a wider zoom-out perspective which by its very nature takes a holistic view of things. This broader view generates wisdom and foresight.

4. Science & tech also impose a mindset of power and greed. The impression that we can do anything we want and find a way out of any tricky situation. As I have mentioned earlier, colonizing other planets and getting away from a ruined earth, was one such dream. Hawking actually wrote that we should try to colonize other planets within the next 100 years!! 

5. Religion on the other hand teaches self control and responsibility.  These mindsets do matter enormously on the way we think and live.

Whilst scientific discoveries have not always been beneficial to the planet and humankind, many have. As for religion, that has caused many problems over the centuries and still does.