This is an addendum to the Religion vs Science thread. Rep. Rush Holt, a plasma physicist and Jeopardy champion expresses what I mean by “scientifically minded" better than I have. He doesn’t mention religion specifically, but I think it is pretty obvious who he is talking about when he talks about how difficult it is get his political opponents to look at important issues this way.
I am not saying that scientists are smarter or wiser than other folks. But there are habits of mind: you know, a deep appreciation of evidence; an ability to deal with probability and statistics, to be alert to cognitive biases and tricks that our minds play on ourselves; … a willingness to accept tentative conclusions and accept … the uncertainty of these scientific conclusions — not as reason for inaction, but a way of finding the best path forward …
Scientists are better than the general public at thinking statistically … If you understand these things, you understand that there is sufficient reason — in fact, strong reason — to take action to restrict the emission of greenhouse gases … There are good economic reasons to do so … We actually can make money by developing new technologies and changing the ways we produce and use energy … So there are a number of reasons for us to act, and really no good reason for us not to …
So it will be hard to explain to future generations, who will pay an even greater price than the current generation from climate change; it will be hard to explain to them the inaction of America and the U.S. Congress.
We actually can make money by developing new technologies and changing the ways we produce and use energy … So there are a number of reasons for us to act, and really no good reason for us not to …
So it will be hard to explain to future generations, who will pay an even greater price than the current generation from climate change; it will be hard to explain to them the inaction of America and the U.S. Congress.
While I agree with much of what he said, he missed or got confused on a few points. 1) Yes, new technologies can make more money, but there are powerful organizations making huge amounts of money from present technology, and who would be at risk if the new technologies are developed. 2) The majority of companies working to develop and implement new technologies go bankrupt. 3) The average society acts mainly when it’s not comfortable. At present, we are still comfortable with the costs and effects of our present energy technology. Only when the environmental damage and unacceptable costs impact everyone, will they be motivated to find solutions.
Occam
I don’t know if “confused" is the right word. Your mixing an analysis through the lens of capitalism with an a scientific analysis. Capitalism encourages spending a little on covering up problems and hiding external costs. A good scientist wouldn’t do that. If what you say is true, and it certainly has been true in the past, then our ability to exploit our environment will eventually overtake our lack of vision.
Archaeologists can show you lots of civilizations where that has happened. That doesn’t mean it’s the only possible future for us. We’ve never been this globally connected before and had so much information about those “unacceptable costs" available to so many.
Capitalism encourages spending a little on covering up problems and hiding external costs. A good scientist wouldn’t do that.
Well, you compare a good scientist and capitalism. That is not fair. You should compare a good scientist with a good capitalist. A good capitalist looks for his own interest on the long term. Because hiding costs will come out one day, a good capitalist doesn't do that.
So, now I go on dreaming of a better world... :blank: