Are you familiar with Paul Feyerabend? Sounds like you'd like some of his stuff.

I am simply talking about the everyday conduct of science. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What do you mean by everyday conduct of science? You are probably not yielding results because it is so broad. Are you talking about the environmental impact of technology?

What do you mean by everyday conduct of science? You are probably not yielding results because it is so broad. Are you talking about the environmental impact of technology? — TimeLine

A Google search for "environmental costs of technology" yields 4 results. Not what I am talking about.

Educating/training scientists. Conducting research. Press conferences, seminars, conventions, etc. Publishing papers, journals, books, etc. None of that has any negative impact on the environment? Electricity is/was not used? Gasoline is/was not burned? Materials are/were not extracted? Land is/was not developed? Trees are/were not cleared? Wildlife is/was not harmed? Non-renewable resources are/were not consumed? Waste is/was not generated?

Amazing.

Are you familiar with Paul Feyerabend? Sounds like you'd like some of his stuff. — darthbarracuda

I'll check it out.

He's all about keeping science separated from state so as to maintain human freedom and liberty.

You really have not answered the question, what exactly are you looking for? Do you want google to find an all-encompassing result on the environmental impact of technology or do you want information about specific things like electricity or gasoline having a negative impact on the environment? It is a huge subject that requires condensing.

You really have not answered the question, what exactly are you looking for? Do you want google to find an all-encompassing result on the environmental impact of technology or do you want information about specific things like electricity or gasoline having a negative impact on the environment? It is a huge subject that requires condensing. — TimeLine

I already answered this.

I want to know the environmental impact of a specific enterprise: science.

I am sure that if I wanted to find sources addressing the environmental impact of, say, religion, I would not have much difficulty. I would probably find sources saying things like, oh, the rise of megachurches in the U.S. has resulted in increased energy consumption.

I am not finding anything about that with respect to science. Why?

I want to know the environmental impact of a specific enterprise: science. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What I am trying to say to you is that there are certainly sources, but you would need to condense what you mean when you say science because the subject is so broad it will yield either too much or none at all. There is no specific enterprise "science" but that science is a term that explains a number of things and thus you would need to condense that search to those things. So, the impact on the environment and energy consumption, even then you will have oil, gas, agriculture, supply chain, even further still politics, economics, law etc. When I said that you had not answered the question, what I was attempting to ascertain is what you mean by Science.

Did you try a verbatim search?

Did you try a verbatim search? — Purple Pond

Yes.

deleted

And "science".

What I am trying to say to you is that there are certainly sources, but you would need to condense what you mean when you say science because the subject is so broad it will yield either too much or none at all. There is no specific enterprise "science" but that science is a term that explains a number of things and thus you would need to condense that search to those things. So, the impact on the environment and energy consumption, even then you will have oil, gas, agriculture, supply chain, even further still politics, economics, law etc. When I said that you had not answered the question, what I was attempting to ascertain is what you mean by Science. — TimeLine

Here is an article that touches on my concern.

But it is talking about the social costs of science, not the ecological costs or costs to the natural environment.

He's all about keeping science separated from state so as to maintain human freedom and liberty. — darthbarracuda

The Wikipedia article is packed with interesting material.

Wow, a Western philosopher criticizing scientists' condescending attitude towards astrology. I never imagined ever hearing that.

Feyerabend is so good man, and really funny too. He's ultimately concerned mostly about morality.

It is very far-reaching and even then the article of concern draws some specificity. When you think of technology vis-a-vis the impact on our environment, we could draw focus on farming technology, or the technology that requires disposal or forms by-products etc, then you have deforestation, manufacturing, pollution and a number of others. It could be that when you search for "science" it would assume a positive - such as the scientific study of ecological degradation - rather than how science itself is causing the ecological degradation. Technology is probably the better word.

I know of I=PAT and I remember learning of it - it was very difficult managing the multiple variables.

Google can be both so helpful and so NOT. Sometimes a frontal assault on the question at hand just doesn't work.

A Google search for "environmental costs of science" yields nothing... "Ecological costs of science" also yields nothing.

One problem is the way search prioritizes the words in a query. "costs", "environmental", and "science" is likely to be interpreted as a query about the science of environmental costs, rather than the environmental costs of science.

Have you tried taking the title of a good result (or authors names) and used it as a search term?

Have you tried using scholar.google?

"Ecological costs of science" is not something that is going to be the topic of a lot of leading scientists or leading science journal articles (science might be shooting itself in the foot). Remember also that Google returns results on the basis of site visit frequency. So, if there is one web site that precisely answers your question and gets a hundred hits a year, it will be buried very deeply in the results page.

The kind of results you want won't be plentiful, and you will have to hunt in the margins, consulting science dissident sites, cantankerous authors suspicious of science, and so on. Radicals troublemakers or renegades in other words.

It isn't clear whether you are talking about pure science (CERN) or technology (Silicon Valley). I did come across an article about the environmental consequences of an Indian Neutrino project in a trial search, but it was inaccessible.

Good luck.

These are not all high quality results:

Query: "Science damages the environment"

http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-science-really-help-improve-the-environment-or-is-it-more-destructive-than-helpful-to-it

https://sciencing.com/technological-advancement-effect-ecosystem-23107.html

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/european-studies/technology-has-bad-effects-on-environment.php

https://sciencestruck.com/negative-impacts-of-science

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31392/title/Opinion--The-Dark-Side-of-Science/

I am assuming a negative effect of science would be the large quantities of hormones, antibiotics, antidepressants, and other pharmaceuticals being pissed or just flushed into the waterways of the world, having god-knows-what consequences on the creatures who live there, not to mention all the other chemicals being dumped. (Like caffeine: There is a lot of caffeine in the Mississippi River by the time it gets to New Orleans. Consequences? Fish with insomnia? Who the hell knows? Naproxen and some other OTC drugs have been found in rainwater and snow!

The "green" mandate has not spared the practitioners of science, I'm sure. Energy efficient Bunsen burners are the norm now, I'm sure.

But I'm talking about a historical perspective.

The people who control the flow of information in society never miss an opportunity to remind us of (or to deny) the role of producers and consumers of mass-produced consumer goods in the destruction of the Earth. Scientists--with their rarely-questioned authority--are almost always the mouthpieces of those reminders.

My point is that the role of the everyday activities of science itself in the destruction of the Earth is, meanwhile, not on any radar. I'm not talking about the technology that is a byproduct of science. The environmental consequences of such technology are well documented and no secret to anybody who has at least a high school education and consumes the news media. I am talking about the facilities, activities, etc. of pure science.

We are constantly reminded of the benefits of science. When are we told about the costs?

I should add militaries.

I hear plenty about how people like me and the companies we work for and consume the products of are destroying the Earth. But I do not recall ever hearing much of any such thing about militaries.

U.S. Navy sonar harming whales is the most that I recall any big deal being made out of.

Has pure science--the work of Darwin, Einstein, etc.--been harmless to the Earth?

Again, I am not talking about the byproducts of science, such as technology. I am talking about science activities in and of themselves.