How do we make sustainable environments? Is "Evolution" always the most applicable?

[OldWiseGuy]

2+ hours away, doesn't sound real close. More importantly, scientists are way to busy to be protesting.

I'm there often. Going up tomorrow to cut firewood.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They should be effective advocates for the proper use of their discoveries. Perhaps they could start with opioids.

Opioids have been awhile. The problem isn't with the discovers of opioid compounds, but the greedy pharma people who pushed excessive usages like corner boys.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm there often. Going up tomorrow to cut firewood.

Apparently the scientists have left some trees for you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Opioids have been awhile. The problem isn't with the discovers of opioid compounds, but the greedy pharma people who pushed excessive usages like corner boys.

Aren't pharmacists and doctors also scientists?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Apparently the scientists have left some trees for you.

Dead and fallen trees. There's an interesting story there as well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It seems that scientists would rather study the decline of the environment than save it.

Speaking as an observer for the need for local action I can tell you that science is doing little for the environment. As I said they are looking at the world through a microscope. They should get out more.

Again with this jeremiad. Sometimes if feels that the only scientist you "know" are the ones you argue with here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Aren't pharmacists and doctors also scientists?

NO!

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's the point: I am showing you how faith in God applies to your theory.

Your theory may be fine, I am not questioning that - I am saying if you want your theory to live, you will have to develop a working model.

Faith in gods is not a tool of science.

And theories *ARE* working models. That's the whole point of them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

NO!

Close cousins?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you think scientists should become lobbyists?

They should control the use of certain of their discoveries, perhaps through contractual agreements. I wouldn't sell someone a gun if I thought they were going to kill someone with it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Close cousins?

Not really. Medicine is a practice. It's about identifying conditions and understanding treatments or preventative measures. It's closer to engineering. (Both are perfectly valid professions.) Science is about discovering new things that no one ever knew before and asking previously unasked questions.

 

[pitabread]

They should control the use of certain of their discoveries, perhaps through contractual agreements.

That runs contrary to the whole purpose of science and how science is done.

I wouldn't sell someone a gun if I thought they were going to kill someone with it.

How would know that someone was planning kill someone with a gun you were going to sell them?

 

[Hans Blaster]

They should control the use of certain of their discoveries, perhaps through contractual agreements. I wouldn't sell someone a gun if I thought they were going to kill someone with it.

Most of them don't have the legal control over their discoveries. Their employers do.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How would know that someone was planning kill someone with a gun you were going to sell them?

There are two ways:

1) If they check the "are you planning to kill someone" box on the background check,

2) If they look "angry"

 

[Speedwell]

Our esteemed old colleague AV1611 (I wonder where he is now?) used to go on in much the same vein about scientists as OWG. I needled him about it and said that it seemed to me that to him, anybody was a "scientist" who had finished high school and owned a pair of shoes. He found that amusing, but I wonder if OWG would think it so funny.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That runs contrary to the whole purpose of science and how science is done.

Isn't science a business?

How would know that someone was planning kill someone with a gun you were going to sell them?

I said if I thought...not knew.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Most of them don't have the legal control over their discoveries. Their employers do.

Then the responsibility falls on them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Our esteemed old colleague AV1611 (I wonder where he is now?) used to go on in much the same vein about scientists as OWG. I needled him about it and said that it seemed to me that to him, anybody was a "scientist" who had finished high school and owned a pair of shoes. He found that amusing, but I wonder if OWG would think it so funny.

I do. That's funny.

I wonder where AV1611 is. I hope he's all right.

 

[Speedwell]

Then the responsibility falls on them.

And not on scientists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And not on scientists.

Unless they too are scientists and understand that their products can be dangerous if misused. Who is accountable if someone is harmed (the label instructions are too small too read)?