One of the biggest puzzles of the 20th Century will surely be how a seemingly intelligent species could not anticipate many of the problems that now confront us. Overpopulation, Species forced into pockets ( We now have only 2500 odd tigers left and their future is uncertain), a society heavily dependent on petroleum products, which is fast expected to become a scarce commodity; a society which is proud of its quality of life, despite the fact that modern comforts (obtained at great cost to the environment) have made individuals unhealthy as never before. The increase in corruption worldwide, which makes it ever more difficult for humans to communicate and to effectively solve their problems; where they can no longer be sure that other humans are working, keeping our collective interest in mind.....

The question is, is there something structurally wrong which prevents us from using effectively all the knowledge we have in the sciences, humanities, management theories, etc. How come that the age of reason, ushered in by the exponential growth of science has become a damp squib?

May be I am wrong, but my fear is, the problem lies in the very nature of Science. Over the last hundred years we have literally handed over the steering wheel to Scientists, and Scientific way of thinking. Finding scientific equations too difficult to understand we have collectively gone to sleep with the hope that scientists (whom we respect, and indeed are worthy of respect) are doing the right things. We have chosen to deliberately ignore what Scientists have themselves been shouting from rooftops, that SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL IN ETHICS. Even though Science and Scientists did not deliberately conspire to create this fallout; by osmosis, this lack of ethics seems to have permeated our way of life. Even as Science has demolished our household gods, it has not been able to replace it with something which can guide our day to day actions. Indeed by default Science and Scientists seem to have taken the role of the Gods we once used to worship..... But is modern science fitted to wear this godly hallow?

Let us look at the limitations of modern science:

1. The idea that 'science does not deal in ethics' can only be applied to basic science. Much of the science today is of an applied nature, but scientists themselves have not woken up to this fact. Or maybe the science-industrial lobby believes in making hay when the sun shines.

2. The various branches of science are dangerously isolated. Each is virtually a black hole which does not illuminate nearby stars. Nature herself does not recognize branches of science, however complex their names may sound. In Nature every science is seamlessly integrated.

3. There is a need to sharply distinguish between the physical sciences and the biological sciences. Unfortunately we seem to be putting all the sciences in the same basket. Discovering that the whole universe bloomed from a grain of sand does not lie in the same band of complexity as that of organic life on our planet. Since we ourselves are a part of this organic universe it is very unlikely that we can understand this world beyond a certain limit (that would be like being able to push a vehicle from inside to make it move ).

4. Since scientists, by the nature of their avocation, have their eyes focused on the next discovery they do not have the interest, the time or the ability to visualize the fallout of their scientific innovations. With the rapidly changing technological environment, which also changes dramatically the environment in which we live and work, our collective future is put at risk.

5. Even though scientists have been attacking the religious establishment for a long time now, the fact remains that in science relating to the understanding of human nature, the modern sciences are far behind the established religions. Indeed, one of the interesting facts about scientific research into human nature is that there has been very little of it in the last 70 - 80 years. The type of research that made Sigmund Freud famous - his probing of human sexuality and the role played by the subconscious mind - has been conspicuous by its absence of late (The only exception I can think of is Paeget's theory of cognitive development in children). Perhaps the science/industrial combine have found such research superfluous. After all there are these wonderful drugs to solve all our problems. If you cannot sleep you can always take sleeping pills. If sugar does not agree with you there is sugarless sugar to help you out. If you have difficulty as an athlete there are these body building and performance enhancing drugs .... ( I was amazed to learn that it is not only the athletes who compete in the Olympics who take drugs, but it is now widely prevalent at school level and college level athletics in our country!)

How do we go about solving these problem? In other words how can ordinary folks like us with IQ 100 minus, solve the potential problems created by our peers with IQ 150 + ?

Selvaraj

Hi Selvaraj,

--- sraj wrote:

>
> One of the biggest puzzles of the 20th Century will
> surely be how a seemingly intelligent species could
> not anticipate many of the problems that now
> confront us. Overpopulation, Species forced into
> pockets ( We now have only 2500 odd tigers left and
> their future is uncertain), a society heavily
> dependent on petroleum products, which is fast
> expected to become a scarce commodity; a society
> which is proud of its quality of life, despite the
> fact that modern comforts (obtained at great cost to
> the environment) have made individuals unhealthy as
> never before. The increase in corruption worldwide,
> which makes it ever more difficult for humans to
> communicate and to effectively solve their problems;
> where they can no longer be sure that other humans
> are working, keeping our collective interest in
> mind.....

Many of the problems you list above have their
solutions in the conquering of space. An animal
population is dying out because of loss of habitat?
Just peel a little more regolith off of Ceres and make
a new space station, and have a custom-made habitat
for hundreds or thousands of species. Overpopulation?
If it isn't self-controlling (as other commentors
have indicated), then just build another space
station; with the dismantling and processing of Ceres,
we'd get enough space stations to total something on
the order of 500 times the surface area of the earth.
Dependence on oil? Switch to solar power satellites.
Problems with corrupt governments on earth? Choose
from thousands or tens of thousands of political
systems, among the space stations. Etc.

>
> The question is, is there something structurally
> wrong which prevents us from using effectively all
> the knowledge we have in the sciences, humanities,
> management theories, etc. How come that the age of
> reason, ushered in by the exponential growth of
> science has become a damp squib?
>
> May be I am wrong, but my fear is, the problem lies
> in the very nature of Science. Over the last hundred
> years we have literally handed over the steering
> wheel to Scientists, and Scientific way of thinking.
> Finding scientific equations too difficult to
> understand we have collectively gone to sleep with
> the hope that scientists (whom we respect, and
> indeed are worthy of respect) are doing the right
> things. We have chosen to deliberately ignore what
> Scientists have themselves been shouting from
> rooftops, that SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL IN ETHICS.

Science might not deal in the study of ethics (which
is properly the purview of philosophy), but individual
scientists do deal in ethics, every single day. And
blaming the vast changes in society over the last
century on scientists alone is to ignore the effects
of philosophers like Marx, economists like Friedman,
and entertainers like Elvis. The majority of the
population of earth is not in thrall to scientists:
compare the salary of a scientist (even a very
well-known one like Hawking) to that of a sports
figure like Beckham.

>
> Let us look at the limitations of modern science:
>
> 1. The idea that 'science does not deal in ethics'
> can only be applied to basic science. Much of the
> science today is of an applied nature, but
> scientists themselves have not woken up to this
> fact. Or maybe the science-industrial lobby believes
> in making hay when the sun shines.
>

While I have heard of a Military-industrial complex,
this is the first time I have heard of a
science-industrial lobby.

> 2. The various branches of science are dangerously
> isolated. Each is virtually a black hole which does
> not illuminate nearby stars. Nature herself does not
> recognize branches of science, however complex their
> names may sound. In Nature every science is
> seamlessly integrated.
>
> 3. There is a need to sharply distinguish between
> the physical sciences and the biological sciences.
> Unfortunately we seem to be putting all the sciences
> in the same basket.

Points number 2 and 3 directly contradict one another.

>
> 4. Since scientists, by the nature of their
> avocation, have their eyes focused on the next
> discovery they do not have the interest, the time or
> the ability to visualize the fallout of their
> scientific innovations. With the rapidly changing
> technological environment, which also changes
> dramatically the environment in which we live and
> work, our collective future is put at risk.
>

This is patently false. Scientists such as
Oppenheimer and Fermi most definitely could visualize
the fallout - literally.

> 5. Even though scientists have been attacking the
> religious establishment for a long time now, the
> fact remains that in science relating to the
> understanding of human nature, the modern sciences
> are far behind the established religions. Indeed,
> one of the interesting facts about scientific
> research into human nature is that there has been
> very little of it in the last 70 - 80 years. The
> type of research that made Sigmund Freud famous -
> his probing of human sexuality and the role played
> by the subconscious mind - has been conspicuous by
> its absence of late (The only exception I can think
> of is Paeget's theory of cognitive development in
> children).

I don't think what Freud did could be called "science"
by any stretch of the imagination. Nor could any of
the so-called "social sciences" be legitimately called
science - there are no controls, no dependent and
independent variables, they are purely descriptive (as
opposed to predictive), and depends completely on
(lies, damn lies and) statistics to draw any
conclusions.

Ed