What big break thru do we need the most?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gordon Shumway**

We probably should let our moral and ethical systems catch up. We escaped the Cold War, but just barely. The Chinese researcher that reduced genetic code for the "no aids" trick that has a possible unintended bonus of memorization tells us we don't have the systems in place for our current tech. He was probably well intentioned, but he is opening a whole big can of worms that we really cannot control as a species right now.

**Techpriestsupport**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
do people really want immortality? I think life would be terribly dull.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Elbows wrote:
Even in the short start to the thread, you can see the subcurrent of a future conflict/issue which calls all of this into question.

Anti-religious types (I do not practice religion, personally) generally agree that cold-hard-logic is the answer to a lot of the world's problems. However, you have some people who are so (ironically) zealous about science...they're nearly as cult-mad as some of the crazy religious types they're complaining about. Then...consider in the future we develop enough science to determine that X, Y or Z shouldn't be born, or yada yada...science can only go so far before it actually becomes the root cause of religion sprouting up again. This is just an endless cycle. The colder and more logical the world becomes the more desperate people will become to find "a greater meaning", or something non-scientific to rally behind to justify their existence or usefulness, etc.

A scientist knocking at your door informing you that your usefulness quotient isn't inline with your caloric intake and thus you've been selected for discontinuation....is about as tragic as people wanting to burn you because they think you're a witch. There are extremes to every angle.

Citation please. This just sounds like anti-science rhetoric to me.
I really want to see examples of when science has yielded cults and religious revivals, or anyone using actual science to assign 'usefulness quotients' and not nutjobs wearing a (painfully obvious) pseudo-science mask

I dont think its anti science rhetoric.. while there is a little bit of reductio ad absurdum in the example provided, the underlying point is valid. Placing cold hard logic at the pinnacle of your ideological system, to the detriment of all other sociological systems is flawed thinking. Humanity needs morality and ethics (usually derived from religious ideals) just as much as it needs objective truths(derived from science). One cant work without the other.

Here's one from Einstein about that:

It is not enough that you should understand about applied science in order that your work may increase man's blessings. Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavours... in order that the creations of our minds shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.
— Albert Einstein
Address to students of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California (16 Feb 1931

**admironheart**

Dreadwinter wrote:

This is 100% factually untrue. We have barely tapped the quality lands capable of farming and with our ability to enrich soil and create farmland through vertical structures, we can produce a LOT more food than ever before.

Not sure what conspiracy website or such you got your info from. I spend many days in seminars hosted by industry experts. This is the general consensus from field experts.

https://www.gardenguides.com/111143-farmland-soils.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/7u6enj/map_showing_where_all_the_agricultural_land_is_in/?st=ju53mq1y&sh=22d43f51

https://sciencing.com/much-earths-land-farmable-16685.html

**Peregrine**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
I think this board could use a block function like facebook has that keeps blocked users from seeing the posts of the people who blocked them.

Let me guess, angry that you can't post your bad ideas without criticism? A better solution is to stop posting ideas that display, to put it politely, a very shaky understanding of science and engineering.

**StormX**

Peregrine wrote:
Techpriestsupport wrote:
I think this board could use a block function like facebook has that keeps blocked users from seeing the posts of the people who blocked them.

Let me guess, angry that you can't post your bad ideas without criticism? A better solution is to stop posting ideas that display, to put it politely, a very shaky understanding of science and engineering.

I believe your understanding of engineering is also very shaky based on past conversations.

Just putting that out there to keep it even.

**Peregrine**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I dont think its anti science rhetoric.. while there is a little bit of reductio ad absurdum in the example provided, the underlying point is valid. Placing cold hard logic at the pinnacle of your ideological system, to the detriment of all other sociological systems is flawed thinking. Humanity needs morality and ethics (usually derived from religious ideals) just as much as it needs objective truths(derived from science). One cant work without the other.

It absolutely is anti-science rhetoric. Nothing in science dictates that if you can analyze people and find them to be less than optimal you should exterminate them. Science is a means to an end, a process that has been demonstrated to produce results more efficiently than any other alternative. If you set morally good goals then you will accomplish those goals. If you set morally evil goals you will accomplish those goals. So don't blame science for eugenics and such, blame the morally reprehensible people who used the tools they had for evil purposes.

And yes, we need morality but we certainly do not need religion. Secular values will do the job just fine, without any of the baggage of religion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormatious wrote:
I believe your understanding of engineering is also very shaky based on past conversations.

Just putting that out there to keep it even.

Unfortunately the content of those conversations is overtly political and I can't make an accurate response here, but let's just say everything you've said to me demonstrates that you are very wrong about both engineering and politics.

**StormX**

Its fine, just mentioning that so techpriest knows that some people also think you are very shaky with understanding engineering. No offensive at all. Have a good day.

**Peregrine**

Stormatious wrote:
Its fine, just mentioning that so techpriest knows that some people also think you are very shaky with understanding engineering. No offensive at all. Have a good day.

Where by "some people" you mean one person that has demonstrated a severe lack of qualifications to comment on, well, just about anything.

PS: unlike you I am an engineer.

**Mr Morden**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
do people really want immortality? I think life would be terribly dull.

Better hope there is no afterlife then

My primary concern (as I and loved ones get older) is halting the ageing process - then you can choose how long you live, I would agree that we also need to cure diseases and concidtions like cancer and dementia as wellas needing advances like Fusion power.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Techpriestsupport wrote:

Here's one from Einstein about that:

It is not enough that you should understand about applied science in order that your work may increase man's blessings. Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavours... in order that the creations of our minds shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.
— Albert Einstein
Address to students of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California (16 Feb 1931

I like that. I think Einstein epitomises that balance I was talking about. Another quote I like is: 'not everything that can be counted counts, not everything that counts can be counted.' which is often mis credited to einstein but more likely from William Cameron.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I dont think its anti science rhetoric.. while there is a little bit of reductio ad absurdum in the example provided, the underlying point is valid. Placing cold hard logic at the pinnacle of your ideological system, to the detriment of all other sociological systems is flawed thinking. Humanity needs morality and ethics (usually derived from religious ideals) just as much as it needs objective truths(derived from science). One cant work without the other.

It absolutely is anti-science rhetoric. Nothing in science dictates that if you can analyze people and find them to be less than optimal you should exterminate them. Science is a means to an end, a process that has been demonstrated to produce results more efficiently than any other alternative. If you set morally good goals then you will accomplish those goals. If you set morally evil goals you will accomplish those goals. So don't blame science for eugenics and such, blame the morally reprehensible people who used the tools they had for evil purposes.

And yes, we need morality but we certainly do not need religion. Secular values will do the job just fine, without any of the baggage of religion.
.

Secularism has no values. That's the point. All value/morality systems come from religion. That's not to say everyone should be religious, but we should all be aware of where our value systems come from. Abolishing religion wouldn't achieve the warless utopia that anti religious people think it will.

Jordan Peterson makes interesting discussion on this topic, but at the risk of getting into iffy territory I'll say no more, but I'd advise looking it up on YouTube.

**Techpriestsupport**

Stormatious wrote:
Its fine, just mentioning that so techpriest knows that some people also think you are very shaky with understanding engineering. No offensive at all. Have a good day.

I think peregrine is even less familiar with civility than engineering.

**StormX**

Peregrine wrote:
Stormatious wrote:
Its fine, just mentioning that so techpriest knows that some people also think you are very shaky with understanding engineering. No offensive at all. Have a good day.

Where by "some people" you mean one person that has demonstrated a severe lack of qualifications to comment on, well, just about anything.

PS: unlike you I am an engineer.

How how unexpected, a bland meaningless statement from peregrine. Hmm how do i respond?, how about if i just say, no you.

edit - Maybe if i act arrogant like i know every thing about every thing that will give me some qualifications?

**Ouze**

Well, this is another thread ruined.

**Manchu**

Agreed