> On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, =- deluxe -= wrote:
>
> > Interesting point of view.
> >
> > I would say that the reflection of human nature in life, tends to give
> > people a sense of meaning, which according to Segan's film Contact, science
> > has failed to provide.
>
> Speak for yourself ;)
Sorry if I over generalized. A reference to a movie like Contact is a poor
reference at best.
> If you speak for the majority, ok. But somehow I don't think this is a
> problem of science.
>
> > I think humans, particularly scientists, seem to think that they can
> > control nature itself. This dangerous perspective is responsible for the
>
> Define control. Define nature. Control of certain complex systems is
> notoriously iffy, long-term control of ergodic systems is even provably
> impossible.
>
> > misuse of advancements in science which have led to one of the worst eras
> > of earths history, in terms of pollution.
>
> It ain't quite the scientist's fault, nicht wahr? An advancement in the
> ivory tower does not produce measurable effects. It is the mass-market
> braindead implementation of the principle which causes measurable impact.
> We can hardly abscond the whole idea of doing scientic research if the
> idiots misuse our results, can we?
Politicians, lobbyists and corporate directors don't have the scientific ability
(usually) to execute an operation, they still leave this privilege to science.
Just because someone asked you to design a nuclear reactor, this doesn't somehow
remove your responsibility from the process. I'm certainly not saying that ALL
scientists have contributed directly, but once again, I was making a loose
generalization.
>
>
> > ahh who knows what I'm trying to say..
>
> Not I.
>
> >
> > where's my coffee.
>
> where's my vodka.
>
> > jeff
Where are my smart drugs. I want two pills, one which will give me photographic
memories and another which will diffuse memories within the past two days.