5 ms·

> e.g. if climate is already worsening beyond human limits it's always good to know even Climate wouldn't have been worsened as much as it did without the tech

> e.g. if climate is already worsening beyond human limits it's always good to know even Climate wouldn't have been worsened as much as it did without the technological advances provided by science. It's really, really difficult to cut the Amazonian forrest down using just axes and horse-drawn carts, but once you got mechanised stuff (with the help of science) then it becomes exponentially easier to do it (think just how much science went into the fabrication of bitumen/asphalt, once you have bitumen roads going into and out of the Amazon things get exponentially easier for those who are in the business of cutting trees in there). Which is to say that I fail to understand how come some of us still believe science and technology can get us out of this mess when it was science and technology that brought us here. To be clear, I also fully acknowledge that without science and technology our lives would have been way harder, for most of us life wouldn't have been possible at all: without science we would have had no green revolution, which means we still would have had famines around the world, never mind that the green revolution caused a lot of environment-related nasty things, so it's not always black and white.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nomel 4y ago
> how come some of us still believe science and technology can get us out of this mess when it was science and technology that brought us here. I can't understand the logic here. The progress of science isn't somehow dead. The problem is our priorities. For an example, the US just sent $50 billion to Ukraine. Imagine what 50, $1,000,000,000 science grants could accomplish.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  > For an example, the US just sent $50 billion to Ukraine. Imagine what 50, $1,000,000,000 science grants could accomplish. Not sure your example is clearly bad priorities. (Though generally I think the US wastes too much on the military.) What's the worst case scenario when the money is defending Ukraine instead of science? Science funding won't as help much if there's an unchecked bully marching across Europe.
  - nomel 4y ago
    I think you’ve simplified things. Here’s the president, himself, explaining what’s going on: https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-resurfaced-clip-russia-baltic-states-1997-video-1685864 https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-resurfaced-clip-russia-ba...
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Perhaps you can ELI5 because I was under the impression Ukraine was a sovereign nation. Free to pursue any alliances it wishes. And that its 1991 borders were acknowledged in exchange for yielding nuclear weapons to Russia.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Speaking as a Russian who grew up in the 90s, NATO was never a real threat to post-Soviet Russia. Our "national patriot" political faction made it into a threat in its propaganda because they needed an existential enemy to build their ideology up on.
nubero 4y ago
You need to read “The Beginning of Infinity” by David Deutsch. It will help clear up all the muddled thinking I see going on when I read those lines of yours. Edit: You can also go here and watch this: https://youtu.be/lX-K63pVPTM https://youtu.be/lX-K63pVPTM I still recommend the book though.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nomel 4y ago

> how come some of us still believe science and technology can get us out of this mess when it was science and technology that brought us here. I can't understand the logic here. The progress of science isn't somehow dead. The problem is our priorities. For an example, the US just sent $50 billion to Ukraine. Imagine what 50, $1,000,000,000 science grants could accomplish.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
> For an example, the US just sent $50 billion to Ukraine. Imagine what 50, $1,000,000,000 science grants could accomplish. Not sure your example is clearly bad priorities. (Though generally I think the US wastes too much on the military.) What's the worst case scenario when the money is defending Ukraine instead of science? Science funding won't as help much if there's an unchecked bully marching across Europe.
- nomel 4y ago
  I think you’ve simplified things. Here’s the president, himself, explaining what’s going on: https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-resurfaced-clip-russia-baltic-states-1997-video-1685864 https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-resurfaced-clip-russia-ba...
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Perhaps you can ELI5 because I was under the impression Ukraine was a sovereign nation. Free to pursue any alliances it wishes. And that its 1991 borders were acknowledged in exchange for yielding nuclear weapons to Russia.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Speaking as a Russian who grew up in the 90s, NATO was never a real threat to post-Soviet Russia. Our "national patriot" political faction made it into a threat in its propaganda because they needed an existential enemy to build their ideology up on.

nubero 4y ago

You need to read “The Beginning of Infinity” by David Deutsch. It will help clear up all the muddled thinking I see going on when I read those lines of yours. Edit: You can also go here and watch this: https://youtu.be/lX-K63pVPTM https://youtu.be/lX-K63pVPTM I still recommend the book though.