Over the last few weeks, we've seen varied and thought-provoking answers to our first question:
The boundaries of science are continually expanding as scientists become increasingly integral to finding solutions for larger social issues, such as poverty, conflict, financial crises, etc. On what specific issue/problem do you feel we need to bring the scientific lens to bear?
From extending the length of human life to localizing and diversifying sources of energy, our Revolutionary Minds have no shortage of ideas as to how a scientific approach might benefit society. And we want to hear from you which of their ideas strike a chord with you. If asked to choose one response (that's not really hypothetical, actually—we are asking you) which do you find the most inspirational? Most likely to come to fruition? Most convincing?
Let us know which response you like the best in the comments. And follow along as we pose more questions to the Rev Minds in the coming months.
- Log in to post comments
I think we should focus on lifespans. With that you reduce the pressure to reproduce thereby gradually winnowing the human population of the planet.
Then we can worry about the energy issue.
I vote for Fernando Esponda's remark! Check it out.
My own biggest concerns have to do with the food we eat and how we eat it. Currently there are zero studies that affirm that organic foods are superior to any other food. i would like to see scientists continue to explore this issue. I want to continue to see more research into obesity and medical issues involving what we eat. I have my opinions and I would want them either afirmed or gainsaid.
I also think that efforts to extend life are vainglorious. First of all as we live longer we continue to use resources. Secondly we require more from loved ones. In my opinion we all ought to live healthy and productive lives and leave what we can to our kids and not some extended life facility.
If we live good lives we do not have to worry about our legacy and we can go reasonably and peacefully.
Population growth is the underlying problem for all the problems facing humanity. Population growth drives the problems with energy supplies, food production, environment,species extinction,global warming etc. It seems simple to me: the earth is a finite resource and we as humans cannot continue to increase our demands on it. Like it or not Malthus was correct: We can and will consume ourselves out of existence unless we as a race reject the biblical imperative to be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the earth.
I think Margaret Turnbull's idea is great, albeit, not as detailed as it could be. A less centralized energy would both allow people more independence and help with environmental problems -- in particular that of sacrificing more and more large swaths of land in the name of building more power plants and other structures of this nature.
The real problem is much more fundamental. The majority of the worlds population today does not believe in science and logical thinking. They have thinking systems that revolve around historical stories from their past, fairy tales that they can not think beyond. What is neaded is what we do to computers a power down and reset, or more agressive resets like reformat the disc and reload.
Fertility rates in Western Europe, North America and much of East Asia have been at or below replacement levels for 30 years. Population growth in these areas, including the US have been due to immigration (new immigrants and their children born in these areas).
In Africa for example population growth is very high, but poverty keeps life expectancy around 50 and they consume very little. Poverty is the root of population growth in most countries.
Food is an issue only because we are letting global corporate cartels control the food supply and the richer countries put economic and political pressure on developing countries to be interdependent and not self sufficient (Free Trade and WTO), allowing these cartels in.
Forget about the lack of studies on organic foods, what about genetically modified foods using DNA from bugs. There have been no independent studies in the US, they are simply granted GRAS status, generally recognized as safe. But Monsanto says they have tested it and all is well, but FDA just accepts whatever they are given w/o question, so that should make you feel confident. Resistance in other countries has been fought using WTO enforcement measures.
Negative independent studies in Europe have been given little coverage in the US, and are generally suppressed.
One theory is that evolution is driven by microbes humans are exposed to in food or as hosts in the body. If "you are what you eat", our evolution may be driven in the future by Monsantos seeds. Don't get me started on terminator seeds or what will happen when all of their seeds grow crops that are no longer to their herbicides and insecticides, which may cause famine in some areas dependent on these crops.
And there is no way the powers that be want higher life expectancy in the developed world, what with many folks in retirement or nearing it, collecting social security, pensions, and health benefits. If anything, the neo-malthusians would like to see a great pandemic or famine that wipes out a large number of the population (Sir Philips hoped he would be reincarnated as a pandemic virus).
As for the energy shortage, read Thomas Gold and note that proven reserves of oil globally have doubled since the 70's despite increased consumption, because oil is not only have a biogenic origin but it's main source is from an abiogenic origin. We were supposed to run out long ago. A contrived energy shortage is the difference between 5 dollars a barrel and 50-150 dollars a barrel, so thats the motive. Expensive energy also suppresses living standards, a motive of the political neo-malthusians to preserve resources in Africa and South America by keeping poverty high to reduce consumption.
Big Oil is another Global Oil Cartel, and they like imported oil because the majority of the profits get locked up in the tax havens where their ships are registered (eg, they buy from Nigeria at 40 dollars, sell to the US at market price, 60-150 in recent years, and lock up the profits in Panama). Hence, the lack of interest in drilling in the US (if they wanted this, Bush at the height of his popularity would have cited National Security concerns and issued an Executive Order allowing them to drill wherever they wanted.)
There are no independent scientists in a position to verify the oil supplies, just corporate and government scientists. If there really was a shortage, you can bet our military would be hollering about national security and a Manhattan scale project started. They consume more oil than most countries.
Politics (local and global)is as poisonous to science in the 21st century as religion was at times. The corporate-military-political alliance makes it more so actually.
Some say sociology and politics in science is creating a new religion where it's politicized scientists are the high priests, warning the masses of Hell on Earth should man not repent and sacrifice by reducing consumption to save Gaia. Those who are skeptical are deemed heritics. That would lead me to Global Warming and Climat Science but I am out of time.