The point I'm trying to make is not that Science is bad, but more that science isn't unanoumusly good. You can't solve all current world problems by throwing science at them. There are other problems that need to be taken care of.
You don't throw science at problems to fix them. It is a tool as much as any other; that is why it is not inherently good or bad. Which is why you bringing up weaponized science up as a reason why all science is bad is incredibly broken.
There are problems science is well within capabilities of fixing, yet it is impeded all the same. There are other problems, ones entirely of social construct and the like which will not be solved by science. But ones like Climate change can, and the activities of a few big nations with heavy anti-science stances are screwing the world over.
I beg to differ. While the Industrial revolution eventually ended up being alright, there are ways it easily could've been better*. Once again, progress isn't good. The direction in which really matters.
You are confusing progress with regression. Everything can always be better.
For example, the industrial revolution had a lack of equality. Guess what showed up?
Progress just indicates the destruction of the old to be replaced by the new.
Progress does not "just" destroy old things to replace the new. The old things that are good, we keep. The old things that are bad, we lose. This is not hard to grasp. You seem to suffer from the misconception that to move forward you must destroy your identity.
I don't know how you managed to get to that conclusion, but the shard just got built and we haven't blown up St. Paul's cathedral yet
Since not all old stuff is bad, and certainly not all new stuff is good, it doesn't make a good solution to the world's problems.
I sincerely hope this is just a semantics thing and you don't understand the meaning of progress.
1. Forward or onward movement towards a destination:
the darkness did not stop my progress
they failed to make any progress up the estuary
[count noun] archaic a state journey or official tour, especially by royalty.
2 Development towards an improved or more advanced condition:
we are making progress towards equal rights
You would have us remain in stagnation till we reach the point of living in a primitive condition. The absurdity of this is profound. The solving of the world's problems
is progress.
*Yeah, of course. This doesn't mean that the world war was irrational.
Heyo reason.
In order to increase equality, you will loose freedom.
I am well ready to loose freedom on the world in the name of equality. Glad you agree!
That - that is progress.
Also, the following slavery was also a reasonable thing. Since the native Americans were not very good at surviving the harsh work on plantations, it was decided, logically, that importing African slaves would be a more economical and maybe more humane thing to do.
What the fuck is this shit
It's the entirely reasonable consequence of the situations in those times, coupled with the values of that time. Reason is in itself meaningless. It's just the logical combination of A and B towards C.
Shematized version:
Problem:
Natives are bad plantation workers, causing much suffering and death
Values:
-Civilized people have the right to control uncivilized, and need to "help" them
-Profit is important
Solution:
Import African slaves, which worker harder, and are much more resilient to the hard plantation work.
Result
-More profit
-Less deaths (at least in the beginning. Then they came on the idea that slaves were really cheap and they could afford to loose them during the voyage)
Succes!
Can't say this is an irrational or unreasonable thing to do. It might be inhumane, but that isn't one of the values supported by the Apocalypse.
1. The values of those times was held by people who found reason, equality, science and progress worthless.
2. Those values were only held by the people who
chose to keep them. Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1833. Slavery was permanently abolished in France by 1848. In the USA, 1865.
The plantation workers enslaving the natives didn't care about equality, only profit. Civilized "people" had no right to destroy other people's civilizations and enslave them, working them to death in brutal conditions, where humiliation, torture, rape and degradation was common.
Result:
You are morally corrupt beings driving success from death and suffering.
Meanwhile in Industrial Europe:
"In the words of Nobel Prize winner Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before".
"Chronic hunger and malnutrition were the norm for the majority of the population of the world including England and France, until the latter part of the 19th century. Until about 1750, in large part due to malnutrition, life expectancy in France was about 35 years, and only slightly higher in England. The U.S. population of the time was adequately fed, were much taller and had life expectancy of 45–50 years.
In Britain and the Netherlands food supply had been increasing and prices falling before the Industrial Revolution due to better agricultural practices; however, population was increasing as well, as noted by Thomas Malthus. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, advances in agriculture or technology soon led to an increase in population, which again strained food and other resources, limiting increases in per capita income. This condition is called the Malthusian trap, and it was finally overcome by industrialization."
One country sought to sustain larger populations with farming done by slaves, in decrepit brutal working conditions. The other - which started
behind, increased it with technology and science.
Which one caused less suffering.
Guess.
Author
Topic: Things that made you sad today thread. (Read 9778831 times)