3 ms·

Science and the advancement of technology is literally the only thing that has ever led to lasting prosperity for humans. All other periods of prosperity over t

by feoren 3y ago

Science and the advancement of technology is literally the only thing that has ever led to lasting prosperity for humans. All other periods of prosperity over the last ten thousand years have been temporary and highly localized. You can lose your golden age of prosperity through a single assassination. Only science breaks the wheel. If you factor in all future humans in your utility calculations, then science is by far the #1 noblest pursuit humans can ever undertake. We're talking about scientific advancements potentially helping trillions of people before all is said and heat-deathed. Great works of art can also be enjoyed by all future humans, but science has a super-linear (if not actually exponential) growth curve where every advancement makes future advancements a little easier. The question is whether the noble pursuit of "science" and the day-to-day activities of "being a scientist" have diverged or not. There is mounting evidence that the institution of science has been subverted to the extent that many people who are professional scientists are not actually contributing to the pursuit of science. Or, far worse, detracting from it, as we see here. It's one of the great tragedies of our era.

fock 3y ago
> Science and the advancement of technology is literally the only thing that has ever led to lasting prosperity for humans. All other periods of prosperity over the last ten thousand years have been temporary and highly localized. You can lose your golden age of prosperity through a single assassination. Only science breaks the wheel. How exactly do you know this civilization will not crash too? (and take with it that highly localized habitat)
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  That was exactly my question when I read that quote too. Everything is temporary on a large enough scale and everyone w/i that golden era also thought it would last and that belief is part of why it didn't. Humans will never build anything that truly lasts for a very simple reason. The lessons learned get forgotten after 2 generations (3 at most). Stop and consider how the US fought for its freedom and how nowadays many people from the US would vote to have more limitations on speech.
  - feoren 3y ago
    > The lessons learned get forgotten after 2 generations (3 at most). What are you talking about? Did we all forget the Pythagorean Theorem after 3 generations? Did we forget the force-multiplying effect of levers and pullies a few generations after Archimedes died? How can you sit here with Wikipedia at your fingertips and tell me that the collective sum of humanity remembers nothing from over 100 years ago? > everyone w/i that golden era also thought it would last and that belief is part of why it didn't Yet from almost every collapsed golden era, scientific progress from that era made its way back to collective knowledge (sometimes very slowly, admittedly). People in this modern age have this extremely simplified view of what "collapse" actually looked like.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      I said lesson, I didn't say facts. What's the difference between data and information? data is data information is data with context The values and lessons learned to build something that truly lasts gets forgotten over time until the thing that was built gets changed into a weaker form as the people involved stop valuing the things that gave it the stronger form.
- feoren 3y ago
  Which civilization? The U.S.? That might slow science down, but it would not significantly reverse progress on it. Of course nations/kingdoms/empires/civilizations wax and wane, but you can't use the word "too" if you're talking about a total worldwide collapse of human civilization as a single event -- such a thing has never happened. If your point is that a Chicxulub or a worst-case Wyoming Supervolcano could outmatch the progress that science has made, then: sure, what's your point? The vast majority of established science will outlive mere nations and petty politics. There are too many copies of Wikipedia, too many printed textbooks and encyclopedias, to lose a significant portion of established science. The possibility of worldwide humanity-destroying events does not disprove this at all. In fact, if we ever faced a humanity-destroying event, then it would be nothing less than our collective scientific progress that would have any chance of seeing us through it.
wredue 3y ago
Every institution is exploited to some degree. What do you mean by many? As an institution, I sincerely doubt that science is exploited to a similar degree as basically any others. I don’t really accept these ridiculous trumpisms. “Many people are saying”. How many people are *doing*? I’ll wager it’s far and away a major minority. Can you back up your “many” with actual numbers as a percentage of investment?
- feoren 3y ago
  > I sincerely doubt that science is exploited to a similar degree as basically any others. The world being shitty in other ways does not diminish the tragedy that we are only a fraction of how effective we could be at pursuing science. > Can you back up your “many” with actual numbers as a percentage of investment? "A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results." "In a 2012 paper, C. Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, a medical researcher at the University of Texas, found that only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies" "The ... paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal and discipline. Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis > I don’t really accept these ridiculous trumpisms. “Many people are saying”. I didn't say "many people are saying", and comparing me to Trump is a much greater insult than things comments get flagged and removed for. Respond to what I actually said and avoid the (extreme) personal insults.

by feoren 3y ago

fock 3y ago

> Science and the advancement of technology is literally the only thing that has ever led to lasting prosperity for humans. All other periods of prosperity over the last ten thousand years have been temporary and highly localized. You can lose your golden age of prosperity through a single assassination. Only science breaks the wheel. How exactly do you know this civilization will not crash too? (and take with it that highly localized habitat)

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
That was exactly my question when I read that quote too. Everything is temporary on a large enough scale and everyone w/i that golden era also thought it would last and that belief is part of why it didn't. Humans will never build anything that truly lasts for a very simple reason. The lessons learned get forgotten after 2 generations (3 at most). Stop and consider how the US fought for its freedom and how nowadays many people from the US would vote to have more limitations on speech.
- feoren 3y ago
  > The lessons learned get forgotten after 2 generations (3 at most). What are you talking about? Did we all forget the Pythagorean Theorem after 3 generations? Did we forget the force-multiplying effect of levers and pullies a few generations after Archimedes died? How can you sit here with Wikipedia at your fingertips and tell me that the collective sum of humanity remembers nothing from over 100 years ago? > everyone w/i that golden era also thought it would last and that belief is part of why it didn't Yet from almost every collapsed golden era, scientific progress from that era made its way back to collective knowledge (sometimes very slowly, admittedly). People in this modern age have this extremely simplified view of what "collapse" actually looked like.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    I said lesson, I didn't say facts. What's the difference between data and information? data is data information is data with context The values and lessons learned to build something that truly lasts gets forgotten over time until the thing that was built gets changed into a weaker form as the people involved stop valuing the things that gave it the stronger form.
feoren 3y ago
Which civilization? The U.S.? That might slow science down, but it would not significantly reverse progress on it. Of course nations/kingdoms/empires/civilizations wax and wane, but you can't use the word "too" if you're talking about a total worldwide collapse of human civilization as a single event -- such a thing has never happened. If your point is that a Chicxulub or a worst-case Wyoming Supervolcano could outmatch the progress that science has made, then: sure, what's your point? The vast majority of established science will outlive mere nations and petty politics. There are too many copies of Wikipedia, too many printed textbooks and encyclopedias, to lose a significant portion of established science. The possibility of worldwide humanity-destroying events does not disprove this at all. In fact, if we ever faced a humanity-destroying event, then it would be nothing less than our collective scientific progress that would have any chance of seeing us through it.

wredue 3y ago

Every institution is exploited to some degree. What do you mean by many? As an institution, I sincerely doubt that science is exploited to a similar degree as basically any others. I don’t really accept these ridiculous trumpisms. “Many people are saying”. How many people are *doing*? I’ll wager it’s far and away a major minority. Can you back up your “many” with actual numbers as a percentage of investment?

feoren 3y ago
> I sincerely doubt that science is exploited to a similar degree as basically any others. The world being shitty in other ways does not diminish the tragedy that we are only a fraction of how effective we could be at pursuing science. > Can you back up your “many” with actual numbers as a percentage of investment? "A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results." "In a 2012 paper, C. Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, a medical researcher at the University of Texas, found that only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies" "The ... paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal and discipline. Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis > I don’t really accept these ridiculous trumpisms. “Many people are saying”. I didn't say "many people are saying", and comparing me to Trump is a much greater insult than things comments get flagged and removed for. Respond to what I actually said and avoid the (extreme) personal insults.