5 ms·
As a species we've barely scraped the surface of understanding this earth. Consider: we haven't even scratched the crust of the planet. Not to mention the infin
by pm90 7y ago
As a species we've barely scraped the surface of understanding this earth. Consider: we haven't even scratched the crust of the planet. Not to mention the infinite space beyond.
This is sorta why it makes me even more mad that our species is more concerned about silly political arguments rather than investing large fractions of our GDP into Science, educating more scientists and unleashing them on the mysteries that the world has to offer.
Instead the greatest minds of our generation are now focused on selling ads. It feels so pointless.
- master-litty 7y agoOur species is concerned with power. And money gives you power. The greatest minds are focused on making money for themselves and someone else. Ads make money unfortunately. Knowledge about our planet earth does not.
- sinuhe69 7y agoI guess when we advance our production techniques so much that we can produce with little effort and automatically almost everything then we can transit to a post-scarcity society where the society can put an emphasis on curiosity, spiritual and intellectual development (and entertainment, of course) instead of material wealth. Automation, AI and new form of sustainable energy would make this possible.
- rayiner 7y ago> This is sorta why it makes me even more mad that our species is more concerned about silly political arguments rather than investing large fractions of our GDP into Science, educating more scientists and unleashing them on the mysteries that the world has to offer. Science costs money and resources. Politics enables money creation and resource extraction. The capacity of our current society to do science is greater than in any society in history. That’s no accident. It’s the direct result of the environment created by our political decisions. The Soviet Union is a great counter example. For a short time, it was at the forefront of science, thanks to the state directing resources to science. It was only due to the untimely death of the head of its space program, for example, that the Soviet Union didn’t beat the United States to the moon. But did the Soviet Union cure AIDS? Create the Internet? Create smartphones? No. It’s politics weren’t sustainable, and it collapsed, and in the long run, its capacity to do science turned out to be quite limited. So maybe our “silly political arguments” serve a function after all?
- pm90 7y agoI think the point you’re trying to make is that political stability of the US is a necessary condition for the promotion of sustained scientific activity, and I agree with that. What I disagree on is that the silly political arguments have anything to do with that political stability. Arguments about abortion, tax cuts and gun laws seem to be the thing that animates most Americans which I would argue aren’t really things that make the country stable; on the contrary they actively harm the populace (if the conservative position on these issues is to be taken). Again the scientific consensus tells us what is the right choice (increase access to improve women’s health, increase taxes to reduce inequality and decrease availability of firearms to reduce gun violence). What I’m sad is that the issues that animate most Americans aren’t that of eg discovering the vastness of space or combating climate change (perhaps this is changing?).
- heavenlyblue 7y agoAbortion law, however, is a direct efficiency tax on the populace due to having to raise disowned children.
- lrem 7y ago> Instead the greatest minds of our generation are now focused on selling ads. It feels so pointless. Don't forget the ones playing zero sum games, like high frequency trying.