Granting science the highest authority is debatable because science doesn't produce truth about everything. It has the capacity to give us a truthful report on the physical, natural world. That's no small thing. It is gradually revealing how our brains work--that is most excellent. I trust science. What science is not equipped to do is tell us what we should do. — Bitter Crank

That's it, well said as usual Mr. Crank.

Be correct to reality or be rendered extinct. — karl stone

Yes, that's the equation I'm urging readers to consider.

The reality is that human beings are limited, just like everything else in nature. Theories that argue for the acceleration of knowledge development without limit are not "correct to the reality" of the human condition. To the degree we cling to such theories we are headed for extinction.

Why do we not sell surface to air missiles to ten year old boys? Understand that, and we understand why science can not continue without limits.

If there is any prospect at all of successfully managing the potential dangers of science and technology, I'd suggest it follows from adopting responsibility to the meaningful implications of the reality science describes. For, make no mistake - my technophobic friend, there is no retreat to the rural idyll for the majority. I genuinely believe there is a way forward - that follows from the piece on evolution on the previous page, that being (intellectually) correct to reality, as all surviving life has done through attrition until human intellect, is a path that leads somewhere we must go.

Marx saved capitalism. — karl stone

Really? Marx was describing the historical processes he saw at work. He didn't save capitalism -- it didn't need saving. Marx predicted, he didn't prescribe. He may have been on the side of the workers. but the workers have tasks that they have to fulfill, from Marx's perspective, and if they didn't fulfill those tasks, then...

He didn't tell anyone to begin the revolution in 1917. Marx--as far as I can tell--predicted the revolution would happen when the working class was fully developed and capable of taking over capitalism. Have we reached that point yet? Maybe -- workers at all levels of the corporate structure have the skills to operate the corporation. In fact, for the most part workers (low level to high level workers) do operate the corporation.

What workers lack is "class-self-consciousness": the kind of consciousness that illuminates their class interests and informs their actions. Most workers in the US, at least, think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed tycoons of some sort. Silly them! Their problem is that they lack class-consciousness, and heaven and earth have been moved to make sure they don't develop class consciousness.

That's not Marx's fault. In the long run, if the working class doesn't fulfill it's destiny (as Marx sees it), then one of the contending classes -- workers or capitalists -- will be destroyed. That is not a desirable conclusion to class conflict.

If there is any prospect at all of successfully managing the potential dangers of science and technology, I'd suggest it follows from adopting responsibility to the meaningful implications of the reality science describes. — karl stone

First, there is some prospect of managing science and technology, we're already doing that. The question I'm raising is, can we successfully manage unlimited science and technology? If not, then it seems reasonable to at least question whether a development such as, say, unlimited free clean energy would on balance be helpful to human flourishing.

Next, you keep saying "the reality science describes" without referencing the imperfect reality of the human condition. I wouldn't harp on this except that it seems to me to be not a failure of your personal perspective so much as a logic flaw which almost defines modern civilization. Yes, if human beings were all rational as you define it then we could handle far more power, that's true. The problem is, we're not that rational, never have been, and there's no realistic prospect of us all joining the science religion and becoming Mr. Spock logic machines.

For, make no mistake - my technophobic friend, there is no retreat to the rural idyll for the majority. — karl stone

I'm not technophobic, I'm allergic to our simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" relationship with technology. As example, do you want all citizens to be able to buy nuclear weapons at the Army Navy store? Assuming not, that doesn't make you an enemy of technology, that makes you an enemy of stupidity.

The situation I see is much like what any parent would experience raising teenagers. The parent has to make careful judgments regarding what kinds of powers their teen is ready to handle. It's a complicated situation. The kid is easily ready for a bicycle, but not a Harley chopper. The parent has to decide when the teen can upgrade from a bike to a moped to a regular motorcycle to a Harley. The situation can not be successfully managed with simplistic formulas such as "more is better" or "less is better".

Science culture sees itself as marching brilliantly in to the future, and anyone who wants to slow down the march is branded a technophobe. But the reality is that science culture is actually stuck living in the past, during the long era when we could learn as much as possible without limit because we were operating at a primitive level scientifically. The success of science changes this now outdated paradigm. "More is better" no longer works, unless that is you're content that your next door neighbor can create new life forms in his garage workshop.

I genuinely believe there is a way forward - that follows from the piece on evolution on the previous page, that being (intellectually) correct to reality, as all surviving life has done through attrition until human intellect, is a path that leads somewhere we must go. — karl stone

I agree with this, with the exception that you're not being "correct with reality", but instead engaging in fantasy, in regards to the central factor in this equation, the human condition.

Assuming the plan in your opening post would work, that doesn't automatically make it a good or bad thing. Your plan, any plan, exists in a larger context which must be taken in to consideration.

Their problem is that they lack class-consciousness, and heaven and earth have been moved to make sure they don't develop class consciousness. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps this is another thread, but I've been impressed by these stats from a Washington Post article.

The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth,

Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America

Point being, you, me and 80% of Americans are squabbling among ourselves over the last 10% of the economy. As Bitter Crank might suggest, it's pretty amazing that we in the 80% seem largely incapable of focusing on this economic reality.

As example, Bernie Sanders suggested free college for everyone paid for by the super rich. What's not to like??? There were a few months of buzz about this and then the idea died. Even those students with huge loans around their necks seem to have forgotten this idea and moved on.

More evidence that we aren't as clever as we typically think we are.

Really? Marx was describing the historical processes he saw at work. He didn't save capitalism -- it didn't need saving. Marx predicted, he didn't prescribe. He may have been on the side of the workers. but the workers have tasks that they have to fulfill, from Marx's perspective, and if they didn't fulfill those tasks, then... — Bitter Crank

It's an opinion of course, that Marx saved capitalism. It wasn't his intent, but let us assume his critique was correct - then capitalism should have succumbed to its internal contradictions. But it hasn't - at least, not in the west, not yet. Rather what seemed to follow from Marx influence, was mandatory education for minors, acts prohibiting payment in tokens, pension reform from 1900, and a raft of other social reforms leading ultimately to the welfare state and consumer society. In short, capitalism adjusted to Marx critique, and prevailed over collectivism. Hurrah!

He didn't tell anyone to begin the revolution in 1917. Marx--as far as I can tell--predicted the revolution would happen when the working class was fully developed and capable of taking over capitalism. Have we reached that point yet? Maybe -- workers at all levels of the corporate structure have the skills to operate the corporation. In fact, for the most part workers (low level to high level workers) do operate the corporation. — Bitter Crank

Russia prior to the revolution wasn't capitalist as such. It was a feudal society, in which the vast majority of people were serfs. Expertise and government revolved around the Court of the Tsar, then there was a landowner class, and everyone else were serfs. So, it wasn't capitalism against which the serfs were rebelling in 1917 - it was the politics of the middle ages.

What workers lack is "class-self-consciousness": the kind of consciousness that illuminates their class interests and informs their actions. Most workers in the US, at least, think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed tycoons of some sort. Silly them! Their problem is that they lack class-consciousness, and heaven and earth have been moved to make sure they don't develop class consciousness. — Bitter Crank

There's no-where in the world with a more acute consciousness of social class than Great Britain; and no-where freedom of speech and freedom of political organization is taken more seriously. Indeed, heaven and earth was moved by Marx ideas, but that manifested as reform - stemming largely from the chattering classes. If you're interested in this, look up William Morris - a famous wallpaper designer and social reformer of the era. Joseph Rowntree - the chocolate company founder is another.

That's not Marx's fault. In the long run, if the working class doesn't fulfill it's destiny (as Marx sees it), then one of the contending classes -- workers or capitalists -- will be destroyed. That is not a desirable conclusion to class conflict. — Bitter Crank

Ultimately, I find Marx thesis contradictory - if the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle, how could class consciousness be absent from the working class? It doesn't make sense. And it didn't work out too well for Russia.

...if the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle, how could class consciousness be absent from the working class? — karl stone

Is capitalism dependent upon stupidity? In America today very few people hold the majority of wealth. And the rest of us just go along with that, distracted as we are by our TVs and social media accounts etc.

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America. — Washington Post

What if the top 20 percent owned only 30-40%? They'd still be doing great, and vast sums would be liberated to invest in infrastructure, education, affordable health care etc. But, we the 80% are too dumb to effectively challenge the rigged system, and so we swim in an ocean of preventable problems.

The solution would seem to be, socialism at the extremes, and capitalism in the middle. The goal should be to remove the extremes of wealth and poverty and create a largely middle class nation. We can still have capitalism in the middle that so each of us has an incentive to improve our situation.

Here's a very relevant documentary on Netflix.

First, there is some prospect of managing science and technology, we're already doing that. The question I'm raising is, can we successfully manage unlimited science and technology? If not, then it seems reasonable to at least question whether a development such as, say, unlimited free clean energy would on balance be helpful to human flourishing. — Jake

I don't think we are successfully managing technology. We are headed for extinction as a consequence of the particular technologies we've chosen to employ; not least, fossil fuel energy technology. That's a particular quantifiable problem, ostensibly subject to definition and redress. The idea of "unlimited science and technology" is purely hypothetical and somewhat unlikely. Your argument appeals to the unknown absolute to conjure fear. As if the bear trap that is fossil fuels were not scary enough. But I haven't proposed unlimited science and technology - as your absurd example of selling a ten year old boy a heat seeking missile demonstrates - your arguments are those of a straw-man tilting at windmills. Sort of a cross between Don Quixote and Worsel Gummage!

Next, you keep saying "the reality science describes" without referencing the imperfect reality of the human condition. I wouldn't harp on this except that it seems to me to be not a failure of your personal perspective so much as a logic flaw which almost defines modern civilization. Yes, if human beings were all rational as you define it then we could handle far more power, that's true. The problem is, we're not that rational, never have been, and there's no realistic prospect of us all joining the science religion and becoming Mr. Spock logic machines. — Jake

Again, this is not something I suggest, would want, or imagine would be beneficial. Had science been adopted by the Church from 1630 - and pursued, and integrated into philosophy, politics, economics and society on an ongoing basis, individuals would be much more rational. But that's not what happened. It's not who we are, and I don't imagine we can become rational overnight. It's illogical!!

I'm not technophobic, I'm allergic to our simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" relationship with technology. As example, do you want all citizens to be able to buy nuclear weapons at the Army Navy store? Assuming not, that doesn't make you an enemy of technology, that makes you an enemy of stupidity. — Jake

Where did you get the idea that I'm suggesting giving any technology to anyone anytime? Or that adopting responsibility to science as a coherent understanding of reality implies wholesale deregulation and a lassiez faire attitude? I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting responsibility of the part of government and industry, such that society can continue - full of muddle headed consumers, eating cheeseburgers, worshiping Gods of their own choosing, and throwing their trash over their shoulder.

Is capitalism dependent upon stupidity? In America today very few people hold the majority of wealth. And the rest of us just go along with that, distracted as we are by our TVs and social media accounts etc. — Jake

If you begin with the genetic lottery that distributes gifts like intelligence unevenly; you are led to the realization that 50% of people are below average intelligence by definition. There's probably something like 10% of people who cannot be trained for any useful work at all. It is inevitable that they should be poor, relative to those granted the gift of intelligence. Insofar as the gifted make use of those talents - and benefit from doing so, it is good for society (and the poor) that they should.

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America.
— Washington Post

What if the top 20 percent owned only 30-40%? They'd still be doing great, and vast sums would be liberated to invest in infrastructure, education, affordable health care etc. But, we the 80% are too dumb to effectively challenge the rigged system, and so we swim in an ocean of preventable problems. — Jake

This isn't an issue I address at all. I don't believe it matters how rich the rich are relative to the least well off. I do think it matters how poor the poor are, because we should seek to promote greater equality of opportunity. It should be open to people to identify their talents and make themselves useful - and benefit from those talents and efforts. In this way they benefit society as a whole. But if you have no talents, and can't be useful, then you are necessarily dependent on the talents and efforts of others - and cannot in all fairness expect equality of outcome. That would be perverse.

Had science been adopted by the Church from 1630 - and pursued, and integrated into philosophy, politics, economics and society on an ongoing basis... — karl stone

Your view that the Church (already ruptured by Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, et al,) held so much intellectual sway over Europe in the 17th century that science was a subsection of theology is not sound, imho. The universities had been in business since the 12th century and had been chipping away at the intellectual citadel of the church. True enough, the French Revolution was still 160 years off; Russia, Spain, and various other princedoms didn't get enlightened for a long time. But a secular-scientific view of the world was none-the-less forming among intellectual elites.

Take Giro. Fracastoro (1476-1553) a physician in Padua. In 1546 he proposed his theory that disease, ("infections") were spread by "spores" or some such agent. He was right, but the necessary wherewithal to pursue this theory didn't exist in his lifetime, or until numerous lifetimes later. "Finding scientific reality" was hindered more by the difficulty of the search than interference by religious thinking.

If some bright mind made progress -- like John Hunter the anatomist and physician in the late 18th century -- there were not always bright minds on hand to follow up. The social structure of the scientific enterprise was barely developed. Pasteur, Lister, and Koch didn't have to overcome the church to demonstrate the role of bacteria in disease; they had to overcome conservative doctors who stuck with old theories of "miasmas" causing disease.

Still, the study of nature was producing results that could be turned into technology. Watt's steam engine worked, but it leaded steam badly, reducing its efficiency. It was another Englishman*** who had developed methods of drilling precise cylinders in cast iron that made Watt's engines work much better, leading to bigger and better...

Batteries, photography and telegraphy are further examples of science and technology in the early 19th century. The telegraph was introduced in 1840; by 1862 it had become critical to Lincoln's management of the American Civil War.

By the mid 19th century, our understanding of the natural world was reaching a critical state where knowledge would take off.

In summary: It was the great difficulty of understanding the world without any prior scientific insight that made the task slow and difficult.


***Maybe John Wilkinson, who developed methods of boring precise cylinders in cast iron

The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth

It's even worse on a global scale.

Richest 1 percent bagged 82 percent of wealth created last year - poorest half of humanity got nothing

Published: 22 January 2018

Eighty two percent of the wealth generated last year went to the richest one percent of the global population, while the 3.7 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world saw no increase in their wealth, according to a new Oxfam report released today. The report is being launched as political and business elites gather for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Your view that the Church (already ruptured by Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, et al,) held so much intellectual sway over Europe in the 17th century that science was a subsection of theology is not sound, imho. The universities had been in business since the 12th century and had been chipping away at the intellectual citadel of the church. True enough, the French Revolution was still 160 years off; Russia, Spain, and various other princedoms didn't get enlightened for a long time. But a secular-scientific view of the world was none-the-less forming among intellectual elites. — Bitter Crank

That's a reasonable argument. I do seem to be laying blame exclusively with the Church, but rather I'm describing what actually happened to the man who wrote the first formal description of scientific method. If you can do a better job explaining why that happened - I'll find my spectacles, turn off Poirot - Aunt Emily was the victim, going to bed early to be conveniently murdered, and therefore the only person who didn't need an alibi - and sit down and read your book.

In theory, the Church acted as a central coordinating mechanism on a great many levels; political, economic, social i.e. births, deaths, marriages, and professional - through involvement with the universities. Did you know for example that Newton was required to hide his unconventional Unitarian religious beliefs to gain elevation to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge - and that was almost a hundred years later?

If ultimately what you're saying is that it's more complex than any few hundred words thrown together can convey, then I'm in complete agreement. Afterall, there are no straight lines in nature!

Take Giro Fracastoro (1476-1553) a physician in Padua. In 1546 he proposed his theory that disease, ("infections") were spread by "spores" or some such agent. He was right, but the necessary wherewithal to pursue this theory didn't exist in his lifetime, or until numerous lifetimes later. "Finding scientific reality" was hindered more by the difficulty of the search than interference by religious thinking. — Bitter Crank

If however, you're saying that religious thinking was no obstacle to scientific thinking, then I disagree entirely - and I maintain the essential charge against the Church that is, failing to recognize the truly divine when presented with the formula for its discovery. I think you underestimate the effect of the Church taking such a publicly antithetical stance, that effectively science was branded heretical. Thus, a pall of suspicion was cast upon science one can trace through popular fiction, the obvious example being Frankenstein by Shelley (1823).

Recall, that Darwin was yet to suffer the tortures of the damned at the hands of his own conscience, in contemplation of evolution. He didn't set out on HMS Beagle until 10 years later - and yet this vivid work of popular fiction is wrestling with these themes; science conjuring demons unnatural to God. These are the twisted grains of nature you contrast with my join the dots philosophy, but they say the same.

Still, the study of nature was producing results that could be turned into technology. Watt's steam engine worked, but it leaded steam badly, reducing its efficiency. It was another Englishman*** who had developed methods of drilling precise cylinders in cast iron that made Watt's engines work much better, leading to bigger and better... — Bitter Crank

Wasn't that the corrugated boiler guy? I think I saw a documentary about him. Industrial history is a fascinating subject - it relates to so many of areas of inquiry. But I would point out here that the trick has already been played. We are discussing science as a tool - as opposed to science as truth.

Batteries, photography and telegraphy are further examples of science and technology in the early 19th century. The telegraph was introduced in 1840; by 1862 it had become critical to Lincoln's management of the American Civil War. — Bitter Crank

Oops, we've crossed the pond and entered into a different context of religious and political thought. A much freer one than Europe. I'm thinking in terms of Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, cross referenced with accounts in Paul Johnson's 'A History of the American People' of the religiosity of the first phases of settlement - and it rather suggests that the philosophical error was undeclared cargo on the Mayflower.

By the mid 19th century, our understanding of the natural world was reaching a critical state where knowledge would take off. In summary: It was the great difficulty of understanding the world without any prior scientific insight that made the task slow and difficult. — Bitter Crank

Back up just a little, because Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 - a volume not received at all kindly by the religious. An interesting side note is that the one thing missing from Darwin's theory had been discovered a hundred years before by a monk named Mendel, and cast on a dusty shelf in a monastery somewhere; that is, the genetic mechanism by which traits are transmitted one generation to the next. Mendel had it all mapped out statistically - an idea that would have been of immense benefit, and not just to Darwin. Had there been a central coordinating mechanism (following from the Church's welcome of Galileo as revealing God's word set in Creation for us to discover) so to speak, Mendel's ideas would a) have been known - and b) insulted us against the mistaken racial implications of Darwinism as misconceived of by Nazism. That's the path we're not on!

Insofar as the gifted make use of those talents - and benefit from doing so, it is good for society (and the poor) that they should. — karl stone

Ok, yes, but should the top 20% own 90% of the wealth? If you answer yes, then what's the limit? 95%? 99%?

A billion is a very big number. It's so large that it distorts any comparison to the life of an ordinary person. I think these statistics suffer from that problem - that large global corporations with market values in the tens of billions weigh so heavily on one side, the equation is practically meaningless.

The idea of "unlimited science and technology" is purely hypothetical and somewhat unlikely. Your argument appeals to the unknown absolute to conjure fear. — karl stone

Please list for us the scientists and other cultural elites who argue we should be doing less science. The cultural consensus is that we should learn everything we can learn, as fast as we can learn it. Your opening post is part of that consensus.

This consensus is not rational, because it ignores the real world fact that human beings have limited ability, and thus should not be given any and all powers that we can create. As example, we are smart enough to create nuclear weapons, but not smart enough to get rid of them once created. What this demonstrates is the reality that just because we can invent something it doesn't automatically follow that we can also successfully manage what we've created.

My argument addresses itself to the reality of the philosophy of modern civilization as it currently exists today, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus power.

But I haven't proposed unlimited science and technology - as your absurd example of selling a ten year old boy a heat seeking missile demonstrates - your arguments are those of a straw-man tilting at windmills. — karl stone

As I've said above, I'm not really arguing against your specific proposals so much as I am arguing against the "more is better" technology is the solution to everything mindset which they arise from. And I'm not arguing with you personally so much as I am the cultural group consensus which your post illustrates.

More is inevitable! Whether it's better or not is another question entirely!

If however, you're saying that religious thinking was no obstacle to scientific thinking, then I disagree entirely — karl stone

Well, of course I'm not saying that religious thinking was no barrier. It was and it still is a barrier, whenever people take faith as fact, doctrine as law, and parochial practice as universally normative. The saving grace was (mostly was, but still somewhat is) that sophisticated thinkers who so wished could entertain heretical scientific ideas and religious ideas at the same time. I'll cite a fundamentalist sister as evidence: She ardently believes all sorts of conservative Baptist 'stuff', like the 6 day creation, but at the same time is quite sophisticated about medical practices. She doesn't expect God to take care of her brakes or oil. She's always on top of that sort of stuff.

Giro Fracastoro — Bitter Crank

Fracastoro died an honored man. He wasn't censored, probably because his theory didn't challenge the dominant paradigm of creation. Subverting dominant paradigms can still make one unpopular, even in SCIENCE! ("He knows more than you do. He has a master's degree--in SCIENCE!" Opening lines of a National Public Radio science comedy routine, "Ask Dr. Science".)

Oops, we've crossed the pond — karl stone

Doesn't matter, because photography and telegraphy also played a role in the Crimean war. So, you can rest in peace on your side of the pond. Lincoln, of course, wasn't managing the British or Russian forces. He was still practicing law in Illinois.

Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 - a volume not received at all kindly by the religious.

What about Helmholtz, Christian Doppler, Paul Ehrlich (the one born in 1853), Richard Owen, Hinrich Rink (Danish geologist), Max Saenger (had the bright idea of stitching up the uterus after a caesarian), Bell, Pasteur, Lister, Koch, Mendel, Mendeleev, etc.???

Were there riots over them? — karl stone

More may not be better but bigger is definitely superior, up to the point where one starts tripping over it.

Please list for us the scientists and other cultural elites who argue we should be doing less science. The cultural consensus is that we should learn everything we can learn, as fast as we can learn it. Your opening post is part of that consensus. — Jake

I apologize for the brevity of my previous reply. I was just making a note - preparing to answer when it all kicked off. Poirot - double header, the episode(s) where he meets Sherlock! So...

You do not seem to have got to grips with the core concept - that is, science as a tool was pursued as a means to progress, whereas, science as an understanding of reality was suppressed relative to religious dogma, and thereby political and economic ideology.

This consensus is not rational, because it ignores the real world fact that human beings have limited ability, and thus should not be given any and all powers that we can create. As example, we are smart enough to create nuclear weapons, but not smart enough to get rid of them once created. What this demonstrates is the reality that just because we can invent something it doesn't automatically follow that we can also successfully manage what we've created. — Jake

But if, as I would argue, science is both a tool box, and an instruction manual - and our problem is we used the tools without reading the instructions, your criticism is not valid. The bird building a nest before it lays eggs doesn't need to know the future. It is correct to reality; albeit by dint of a veritable mountain of alternate designs discarded by evolution. Similarly, we don't need superhuman powers of prescience to manage technology. All we need, is to know what's true, and do what's right in relation to what's true.

My argument addresses itself to the reality of the philosophy of modern civilization as it currently exists today, a "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and thus power. — Jake

Sure, but it doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? It's of absolutely no help whatsoever to man nor beast. Your thesis implies that there is no prospect of successfully managing technology, and so we we cannot survive. Hence, it's nihilism in a wig and a false mustache! What I'm saying is, there was another way - a path we didn't take, but can still learn from.

As I've said above, I'm not really arguing against your specific proposals so much as I am arguing against the "more is better" technology is the solution to everything mindset which they arise from. And I'm not arguing with you personally so much as I am the cultural group consensus which your post illustrates. — Jake

More is inevitable! Whether it's better or not is another question entirely! I believe it can be better, but it requires accepting that science is a true description of reality, superior to the pre-scientific, culturally specific, religious, political and economic ideas that govern societies - as a basis to apply technology. i.e. not primarily for power and profit, but to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability.

You do not seem to have got to grips with the core concept - that is, science as a tool was pursued as a means to progress, whereas, science as an understanding of reality was suppressed relative to religious dogma, and thereby political and economic ideology. — karl stone

Thus proving that humans are of limited ability, limited rationality, limited sanity. It's upon that real world evidence that I'm arguing that the powers available to us must also be limited. You keep selling "science as an understanding of reality" while ignoring the reality of the human condition which is well documented in thousands of years of history in all parts of the world.

Similarly, we don't need superhuman powers of prescience to manage technology. All we need, is to know what's true, and do what's right in relation to what's true. — karl stone

In other words, you're arguing for a radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation of how such a thing might come to be.

Sure, but it doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? It's of absolutely no help whatsoever to man nor beast. — karl stone

If we analyze the maturity of a teenager, and decide they are not yet ready to drive the family car, doesn't such an analysis get us somewhere?

My apologies for my impatience, which is my problem alone. I've had this conversation too many times to count, my own form of irrationality.
But (here come the excuses) this is so incredibly SIMPLE!!! that it frustrates me how intelligent well educated people struggle to get it, and rarely succeed. Look how SIMPLE this is...

1) We take it to be an obvious given that the powers available to children should be limited due to a realistic understanding of the limits of their ability and maturity. 99.9% of all sane adults agree with this.

2) On the day the child turns 18 we throw this rational common sense away and the group consensus changes to, "we should have as much power as science can give us, as fast as possible".

This transformation of the group consensus is not even vaguely rational. It blatantly ignores the well documented evidence provided by thousands of years of human history.

And here's why this irrationality takes place. We've transferred the blind faith we used to have in religion in to a blind faith in science.

A "more is better" relationship with knowledge and power is simplistic, outdated and dangerous. It's a childlike philosophy whose time should have already come and gone.

Thus proving that humans are of limited ability, limited rationality, limited sanity. It's upon that real world evidence that I'm arguing that the powers available to us must also be limited. You keep selling "science as an understanding of reality" while ignoring the reality of the human condition which is well documented in thousands of years of history in all parts of the world. — Jake

No-one has disputed that human beings are limited; nor has anyone argued for unlimited use of technology. The pertinent point is that human beings are threatened with extinction as a consequence of the disparity between technological ability and ideological motivation. You are like the detective at a murder scene - who having established the victim was stabbed concludes "children shouldn't carry knives" - which may be true, but says nothing at all about the motive for the crime.

Similarly, we don't need superhuman powers of prescience to manage technology. All we need, is to know what's true, and do what's right in relation to what's true.
— karl stone

In other words, you're arguing for a radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation of how such a thing might come to be. — Jake

Not really. In fact, if you are arguing against the "more is better" assumption underlying human behavior, it's you proposing the "radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation..."
I'm still trying to put across the principle of acting responsibly in relation to a scientific understanding of reality - as opposed to applying technology as directed by religious, political and economic ideological misconceptions of reality. The motives drawn from one understanding of reality are different from the motives drawn from the other.

If we analyze the maturity of a teenager, and decide they are not yet ready to drive the family car, doesn't such an analysis get us somewhere? — Jake

No. Exactly the opposite. We are left stood in the driveway with a stroppy teenager. But I do get the point, and arguably, I welcome the note of caution. We should be careful about the technology we apply, and luckily for us - there's an objective, increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality to act as a far more reliable guide as to what technologies to apply than the maximization of profit.

My apologies for my impatience, which is my problem alone. I've had this conversation too many times to count, my own form of irrationality. But (here come the excuses) this is so incredibly SIMPLE!!! that it frustrates me how intelligent well educated people struggle to get it, and rarely succeed. Look how SIMPLE this is... — Jake

It is simple. I get it.
People are mental and can't be trusted, so padded cells for everyone!
But now what?

1) We take it to be obvious that the powers available to children should be limited due to a realistic understanding of the limits of their ability and maturity. 99.9% of all sane adults agree with this. — Jake

But we are not talking about children. We're talking about scientists, governments and industries primarily. Some extremely smart and serious people. And all the factors are in play - science, the genie is out of the bottle, we have a technologically based civilization - and we are faced with existential challenges.

2) On the day the child turns 18 we throw this rational common sense away and the group consensus changes to, "we should have as much power as science can give us, as fast as possible". — Jake

So how are you going to take those factors - already in play, out of the game? You can't. You've left us stranded in the driveway with a stroppy teenager. And if we don't get across town in the next 20 minuets or so - the world will end, badly!

This transformation of the group consensus is not even vaguely rational. It blatantly ignores the well documented evidence provided by thousands of years of human history. And here's why this irrationality takes place. We've transferred the blind faith we used to have in religion in to a blind faith in science. A "more is better" relationship with knowledge and power is simplistic, outdated and dangerous. It's a childlike philosophy whose time should have already come and gone. — Jake

Well it isn't going anywhere Jake - more is inevitable. People need water, food, clothing, housing, heat, light, employment, entertainment - and all you're offering them is less. They'll not have it. King Knut couldn't stop the tide coming in, and you can't either. If you would emphasize limitations upon human abilities, admit that one first. There's no going back. There's no standing still.

No-one has disputed that human beings are limited; nor has anyone argued for unlimited use of technology. — karl stone

Again, which scientists or other cultural leaders are arguing that we should do less science? If you can not name anyone, or only a few, then doesn't it follow that the group consensus is a "more is better" relationship with knowledge?

If you are not arguing for unlimited use of technology, where do you propose we limit it? And how? You won't have answers to these questions, as is normal across the society, because the group consensus takes the "more is better" relationship with knowledge to be an obvious given which doesn't require examination or challenge.

So unless you are prepared to argue for some specific limits on technology, you are indeed arguing that human beings are unlimited in their ability to manage technology, as is the entire culture.

If you were the only person stuck in this outdated "more is better" paradigm I wouldn't harp on it, for I have no beef with you personally. I'm harping on it because the "more is better" position your position is rooted in dominates the entire society. And ANY position accepted without questioning by ANY group consensus requires inspection by philosophy.

In fact, if you are arguing against the "more is better" assumption underlying human behavior, it's you proposing the "radical transformation of the human condition, without offering any explanation..." — karl stone

I'm arguing that humans should learn, as we've always done. We should learn and adapt to the new environment created by the enormous success of science. You are arguing we should keep on doing the same thing we've been doing for centuries. You position yourself as a spokesman for the bright future but really you are, like the rest of the society, clinging to a dangerously outdated philosophy of the past.

"More is better" made perfect sense in the long era of knowledge scarcity. We are no longer in that era. The era we're in now is characterized by a rapidly accelerating knowledge explosion. New situation, requiring a new relationship with knowledge.

I'm still trying to put across the principle of acting responsibly in relation to a scientific understanding of reality - as opposed to applying technology as directed by religious, political and economic ideological misconceptions of reality. — karl stone

You're not succeeding because you never say anything but repeating that statement. Perhaps you could explain how we get to this imaginary place you are describing, and how we get there before we blow ourselves up.

People are mental and can't be trusted, so padded cells for everyone! But now what? — karl stone

Like you keep saying, face the reality that we are mental. And then, be rational, and don't give mental people vast new powers at an ever accelerating rate.

But we are not talking about children. We're talking about scientists, governments and industries primarily. Some extremely smart and serious people. — karl stone

Some extremely smart and serious people who have arranged things so that we can now destroy modern civilization at the push of a button in less than an hour. Very smart and serious people who rarely find this insane reality they've created interesting enough to discuss.

increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality — karl stone

You aren't actually interested in reality, but you sincerely feel you are.

So how are you going to take those factors - already in play, out of the game? You can't. — karl stone

We can't, because intelligent well educated people such as yourself all across the culture put all their energy in to defending the outdated status quo, instead of facing the situation we are currently actually in. As example, do you want your next door neighbor to be able to create new life forms in his garage workshop? That's what's coming Karl, that, and more and more and more such vast powers available to ever more people.

Well it isn't going anywhere Jake - more is inevitable. People need water, food, clothing, housing, heat, light, employment, entertainment - and all you're offering them is less. — karl stone

Here's how easy it is to utterly demolish the group consensus you are chanting. The Amish have been doing perfectly fine for hundreds of years without participating in the reckless pell mell rush in to more and more and more technology. I've lived 2/3 of my life without the Internet, and somehow I survived. Water, food, clothing, housing, heat, light, employment, entertainment can all be provided without risking everything on a reckless race for more and more and more and more.

I'm offering us a sustainable future. You, the group consensus, are offering us that inevitable day when some vast new power slips from our control and destroys everything. One vast power gone wrong, one time, one bad day, that's all it takes.

I disagree. I wouldn't suggest internalizing the true cost. But if you did, the very value of money itself would adjust - just as it adapted to oil price shocks in the past. Rather I'd suggest, seeking to limit the implications to a narrowly focused, feasible and necessary endeavor - like funding renewable energy infrastructure. — karl stone

There's no magic symmetry that somehow changes the value of money to offset internalizing the true cost of fossil fuel burning. The oil shocks of the past weren't somehow made redundant by money changing value, but rather created massive economic dislocations: incumbent industries shrinking because they don't make economic sense without cheap fossil fuel energy and new investment in renewable energy as they are more competitive if fossil energy is more expensive (i.e. the social upheaval that I alluded to in my post).

By "funding renewable infrastructure" I assume you mean by subsidy. If we view just the comparative cost of energies, it seems that forcing fossil to internalize true costs is the same as subsidizing renewables. However, it's not the same. By simply subsidizing renewables to be cost-comparable to fossil energy is not the same as internalizing the real cost of fossil energy.

First, the real true cost of fossil (pollution, health, deforestation, military bases and patrols of fossil producing regions etc.) is not reflected in a renewable subsidy.

Second, subsidizing cost-parity by definition leaves the market open to fossil as regional and other kinds of arbitrage will make fossil more economic in some places even if renewable is better in other regions.

Third, and most importantly, a subsidy to renewable remains a subsidy to primary energy as a whole, and this has the effect of subsidizing energy intensive industries over energy-efficient industries. For instance, with cheap enough kerosene it's economic to fly fruit around the globe, displacing local fruit production. When gas is cheap enough people can afford to commute longer distances, when gas is more expensive it motivates people to live closer to where they work or buy electric vehicle or use public transportation etc. Likewise any business is motivated to make investments that conserve energy (location, insulation, natural lighting or other passive architecture, reducing supply-chain distances, light-weighting or otherwise redesigning production to consume less energy) -- it is not true that these investments would happen anyway as the return on investment is sensitive to the cost of energy: the money saved overtime must be better than the opportunity cost of other things the business can do, like marketing, or then then the general discount rate (for those unfamiliar with this sort of terminology, if a 100 000 USD investment saves 2500 USD a year in an energy saving, but that same 100 000 USD could generate 3000 USD per year in bonds or the stock market or perhaps even 4000 USD a year through a marketing campaign, the business will do one of these other things if they are "economic rational agents", but if the cost of energy was double and they would save 5000 USD a year then the economic rational thing is the energy economizing investment; and of course the differences don't have to be this large, the energy saving could be 3 999 USD a year and a fixed income investment, i.e. bond, could be 4000 USD and the economic rational thing to do would be the bond).

Edit: forgot to explain the discount rate which just represents the same basic facts but instead of the business having 100 000 USD in profits it is able to borrow 100 000 USD; so, if the cost of borrowing is 3% per year, then the energy saving investment must make more than 3000 USD per year to pay off the interest and the principal over the loan maturity or just "eventually" if the business can roll over their loans.

Renewable energy technology doesn't need to be subsidized - it needs to be funded. An infrastructure that needs to be built like the rail network, or the canals, or the Romans and their roads. Only then will it be a fair comparison. — karl stone

True. Some technological hurdles have to be done, but I'm optimistic. Especially solar power has become dramatically cheaper. Renewable energy goes down in manufacturing price as it gets more popular, whereas fossil fuel becomes more expensive as it gets more rare.

I assume that the biggest challenge is aircraft and ships as these need to have long endurance and powerfull motors.

Speaking of renewables, check out this very informative documentary on Netflix which focuses on an all important element of renewables, batteries.

NOVA: Search For The Super Battery
https://www.netflix.com/title/80991272

PS: Wow, if you've ever considered pounding a battery with a hammer, or opening it up with your chain saw, this video will definitely talk you out of it.

If you were the only person stuck in this outdated "more is better" paradigm I wouldn't harp on it, for I have no beef with you personally. I'm harping on it because the "more is better" position your position is rooted in dominates the entire society. And ANY position accepted without questioning by ANY group consensus requires inspection by philosophy. — Jake

My beef with you is - this is my thread, and thus far you haven't discussed my ideas at all. You keep putting the same idea forward again and again - and ignoring the massive flaws with it, which I've pointed out. Not least, that more is inevitable. Close second, it doesn't get us anywhere. Third, right now is that my energy proposals don't call for batteries. And your post is way too long to say the same thing again for the fifteenth time.

There's no magic symmetry that somehow changes the value of money to offset internalizing the true cost of fossil fuel burning. [/quote]

Not exactly, no - but increased oil costs effect everything else produced or supplied using oil. The ubiquity of oil raises prices on almost everything - a cost of living increase that eventually, wages increase to account for. Now, the original price hike has effectively disappeared. You don't get as many apples for a dollar - but you get more dollars an hour, and work the same hours for the same apples. Effectively therefore, the value of money has changed to accommodate the price hike.

The oil shocks of the past weren't somehow made redundant by money changing value, but rather created massive economic dislocations: incumbent industries shrinking because they don't make economic sense without cheap fossil fuel energy and new investment in renewable energy as they are more competitive if fossil energy is more expensive (i.e. the social upheaval that I alluded to in my post). — boethius

In the immediate and short term, sure - a huge economic dislocation you seem to want to cause on purpose, to make renewable energy more competitive. I just don't think that a good idea.

By "funding renewable infrastructure" I assume you mean by subsidy. If we view just the comparative cost of energies, it seems that forcing fossil to internalize true costs is the same as subsidizing renewables. However, it's not the same. By simply subsidizing renewables to be cost-comparable to fossil energy is not the same as internalizing the real cost of fossil energy. — boethius

No. I said renewable energy doesn't need subsidies - it needs infrastructure funding, like the rail network, the canals, or the Romans and their roads. I also propose a means we can raise the money to apply renewable energy on a massive scale, and keep fossil fuels in the ground at the same time.

I agree with the way you reason out the scenario you describe, but it's not what I'm proposing at all. If you'd read the OP - I'd love to get your opinion.

True. Some technological hurdles have to be done, but I'm optimistic. Especially solar power has become dramatically cheaper. Renewable energy goes down in manufacturing price as it gets more popular, whereas fossil fuel becomes more expensive as it gets more rare. I assume that the biggest challenge is aircraft and ships as these need to have long endurance and powerfull motors. — ssu

It's not suitable technology, or knowledge of the problem that we lack. We can do this, but not without some innovative political and economic ideas. Trust in market mechanisms in this case, would in my view be misplaced. The cost of applying renewable energy technology is dependent on the price of fossil fuels, so renewables are effectively running on a treadmill powered by fossil fuels.