Why has science gone to war with natural selection and evil ution?

[Orogeny]

I voted yes, for obvious reasons.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I voted yes, for obvious reasons.

Me too!

Who's with us?!?

 

[selfinflikted]

Count me in!

 

[JustMeSee]

I'm still fairly certain this guy is a bot.

That has been my long standing belief. If so, I think its algorithms have been improved. Don't know for sure.

 

[spartacus1984]

Science is not at war with evil ution.

more of us are surviving having traits that would have prevented us from breeding.

and this is not bad for the human race?

and will this led to the extinction of the human race when it is being bread to have the sexual prowess of the giant panda?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

and this is not bad for the human race?

Nope. Overpopulation isn't really a problem, it's the uneven distribution of resources: we can feed and clothes more than the current 7 billion living people, but wealth and resources are not distributed evenly enough, so we have famine in Africa and gluttony in America. Roughly speaking.

As others have said, scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. Humanity has always "gone to war" with natural processes. If you wear glasses, you're "at war" with short- or long-sightedness. But so what?

 

[spartacus1984]

If you wear glasses, you're "at war" with short- or long-sightedness. But so what?

because we will end up with a world full of short sighted people. that's what.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Overpopulation isn't really a problem, it's the uneven distribution of resources: we can feed and clothes more than the current 7 billion living people, but wealth and resources are not distributed evenly enough, so we have famine in Africa and gluttony in America. Roughly speaking.

As others have said, scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. Humanity has always "gone to war" with natural processes. If you wear glasses, you're "at war" with short- or long-sightedness. But so what?

Are you thinking of who I am thinking of?

Hint: He was born in Surrey.

 

[AV1611VET]

because we will have a world full of short sighted people. that what.

Ya -- they're called "scientists".

 

[sfs]

As others have said, scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive. Humanity has always "gone to war" with natural processes. If you wear glasses, you're "at war" with short- or long-sightedness. But so what?

Similarly, education is a war against the natural state of ignorance and stupidity. Unfortunately, that seems to be a war we are not winning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

because we will end up with a world full of short sighted people. that's what.

Short-sightedness exists whether we correct it or not. But the point is just that: we can correct it. So why does it matter if the world is full of short-sighted people? Short-sightedness only exists when compared to 'normal' vision: if everyone is short-sighted (by today's standards), then everyone will have 'normal' vision, and short-sightedness would cease to be a real condition.

Besides, optometry is so pervasive in modern society that practically anyone can get a cheap pair of glasses. In the UK, those on benefits can get one free pair of glasses per year, which is enormously helpful. I'm short-sighted myself, but it doesn't hinder me. Why? Because it can be corrected.

So, I ask you again: why does it matter? We have waged war on natural processes since time immemorial, so why are you protesting one specific battle? Why aren't you equally protesting the use of antibiotics, surgery, neonatal incubators, and other life-saving techniques?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are you thinking of who I am thinking of?

Hint: He was born in Surrey.

I honestly don't know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Similarly, education is a war against the natural state of ignorance and stupidity. Unfortunately, that seems to be a war we are not winning.

We've come an awful long way since our ignorant days thousands of years ago. Even if standards are slipping in the US and Europe with regards to scientific literacy, the average man still knows a relatively large amount compared to, say, a Neanderthal.

 

[spartacus1984]

Why aren't you equally protesting the use of antibiotics, surgery, neonatal incubators, and other life-saving techniques?

i am.

 

[AV1611VET]

I honestly don't know.

Thomas Malthus

 

[AV1611VET]

Similarly, education is a war against the natural state of ignorance and stupidity. Unfortunately, that seems to be a war we are not winning.

And why aren't we winning it, sfs?

When I see posts where people tell us the U.S. is #24 on a list of educated countries, or another country is #[sub]whatever[/sub], it makes me wonder what kind of game scientists are playing.

Can't they share their information across national boundaries, instead of making a totem pole out of it? or does the love of mammon come into play here?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

i am.

So you don't use modern technology then, like computers and the Internet, as they fight a war on natural communication techniques? Oh, wait...

So you only eat things you grow yourself, right? Because otherwise you're endorsing and supporting agriculture, thus fighting a war on natural processes.

So if your daughter contracted a deadly, but treatable, disease, you would do absolutely nothing to help her?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And why aren't we winning it, sfs?

When I see posts where people tell us the U.S. is #24 on a list of educated countries, or another country is #[sub]whatever[/sub], it makes me wonder what kind of game scientists are playing.

Can't they share their information across national boundaries, instead of making a totem pole out of it? or does the love of mammon come into play here?

Of course we can share information. You only have to go on the Internet to find practically the entire sphere of human knowledge. The problem is that people don't want to learn. Schools can try to teach kids about chemistry and physics, but some kids simply don't want to learn. The knowledge is there, and knowledge in the US can be easily sent to someone in Africa - if both parties agree to it.

 

[Psudopod]

And why aren't we winning it, sfs?

When I see posts where people tell us the U.S. is #24 on a list of educated countries, or another country is #whatever, it makes me wonder what kind of game scientists are playing.

Can't they share their information across national boundaries, instead of making a totem pole out of it? or does the love of mammon come into play here?

They do, though. The problem is that scientists are not educators and most teachers are not scientists. The information can be as free and accessible but it is useless if people don't understand it. There's also more to education than just science. Accessible science won't teach good english skills or an understanding of history.

 

[spartacus1984]

So you don't use modern technology then, like computers and the Internet, as they fight a war on natural communication techniques? Oh, wait...

So you only eat things you grow yourself, right? Because otherwise you're endorsing and supporting agriculture, thus fighting a war on natural processes.

So if your daughter contracted a deadly, but treatable, disease, you would do absolutely nothing to help her?

"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."​

- Charles Darwin