Breaking news today: starting in 2015, Japan will kill 333 whales per year for the next twelve years in the name of scientific research.

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/11/japans-new-plan-research-whaling-calls-killing-333-minke-whales-annually

Now some older examples of ‘silly science.’

Torturous Tests
In tests that many people don’t realize are still being conducted, animals are forced to breathe cigarette smoke for up to six hours straight, every day, for as long as three years. Animals naturally avoid breathing cigarette smoke, so lab rats are forced into tiny canisters, and cigarette smoke is pumped directly into their noses. In the past, dogs and monkeys have had tubes attached to holes in their necks or have had masks strapped to their faces to force smoke into their lungs. In other commonly conducted tests, mice and rats have cigarette tar applied directly to their bare skin to induce the growth of skin tumors.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/smoking-experiments-animals/


The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African-American men in Alabama. They were told that they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment



Now let’s shift gears a little bit.

Chemicals are polluting our lakes and waterways.

Plastics (an invention of chemistry) are clogging our oceans and releasing endocrine disrupting and hormone mimicking chemicals into our waterways.

Radioactive waste is sitting onsite at reactor locations with no foreseeable way to deal with it. It can’t be buried because there is no known place it can be buried safely for the 200 thousand years it will remain dangerous. So it just sits there and piles up, with no solution, after decades of trying to come up with a viable solution (with none yet in sight.)

Fertilizers were once the scientific answer to the food crisis vs. population equation in the early sixties. But now we’ve learned that artificially fertilizing land eventually causes it to go sterile, leaving it unable to produce any food at all. Now we’ve done even more damage because science thought it held the answer.

And how about CO2 in the atmosphere, and all the technology and science that allowed us to locate and extract all this oil that now sits as carbon in our atmosphere. Oops!

And then there’s pharmaceutical science which has stripped the Hippocratic oath out of medicine, and prefers sick people who can be treated endlessly with their money making products.

How about chemical scientists putting additives in our foods in order to formulate the most addictive combinations of ingredients, some even toxic, in order to beat out the competition.


Ok, the list could go on and on. The point I want to make is that you can’t divorce the ‘scientist’ from the responsibility for how the end product of their ‘thinking’ is eventually utilized. Once you rid your mind of the external god based fear and lack inducing religions such as Christianity or Islam, there are plenty of other spiritual paths that could have directed these scientists to the realization that if your knowledge is being used for evil, then you stop giving it. But it seems these ‘savior’ scientists are more than willing to collect a paycheck while foolishly saying they aren’t completely responsible for the outcomes of their discoveries and technologies.

Science may seem benign at first glance, but not when you stand back and look at the bigger picture of where science has taken us. I believe science to be the biggest killer of life on the planet yet, when one looks at the final result of the destruction humankind has unleashed recently on the planet. There are other spiritual paths, not scientific paths, or god fearing paths, that do promote doing no harm. Taoism, Buddhism, Shamanism, Wicca … these are just a few examples of enlightenment paths that lead to peace, while rejecting conflict and fear based thinking. It’s too bad scientists choose to reject all spirituality, because looking at the bigger picture, they seem to be caught in their own self promoting illusion just as much as any fear based religion is, without acknowledging the harm they are doing with their equally barbaric and self-serving approach to life.

I despise god based institutionalized religions, but I also think science is turning out to be just as destructive. But, there are alternatives to either of these two extremes, you just have to look for them and be discerning. However, the ruling forces of our planet that stand behind both science and the institutionalized ‘god’ and ‘authority’ based religions don’t seem to want you to find them. So what we get now is the mess coming from both ‘sides’ (religion and science.)

Some scientists should just learn to say no, before they kill us all. Same goes for people involved in fear based ‘god’ religions as well. Good luck silly monkeys; hope you find your way to the island.

Those who proclaim the incalculable superiority of "science" over "religion," those glaring generalities, and go on to cite highly time-centered and circumstantial instances of religiously rationalized violence--they conveniently neglect to look just as critically at the practitioners of science who are herded by financial concerns into doing the bidding of their less-than-altruistic sponsors. (As an admittedly extremem example of those who attempt to resist, look at the Unabomber, the ethically questionable scientific experiments performed on him, and their result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski)

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those who proclaim the incalculable superiority of
> "science" over "religion," those glaring
> generalities, and go on to cite highly
> time-centered and circumstantial instances of
> religiously rationalized violence--they
> conveniently neglect to look just as critically at
> the practitioners of science who are herded by
> financial concerns into doing the bidding of their
> less-than-altruistic sponsors. (As an admittedly
> extremem example of those who attempt to resist,
> look at the Unabomber, the ethically questionable
> scientific experiments performed on him, and their
> result:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski)

Neither science nor religion "kill."
People do.
People very likely always will, for various reasons.

One big thing to note: the scientific method has absolutely nothing in it to encourage, promote, or condone any kind of killing for any reason; so blaming 'science' for any killing people do is absurd.
Religions, however, very often have bodies of written "commandments" encouraging, promoting, and condoning killing (usually the killing of those who don't believe in the particular religion in question, or who are declared "evil" for not obeying that religion's commandments). So placing some amount of blame for killing done in religion's name is completely valid.

scienceandgodskeptic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe science
> to be the biggest killer of life on the planet
> yet, when one looks at the final result of the
> destruction humankind has unleashed recently on
> the planet.

Personally, I think meteorites hitting the earth every now and then (speaking on a geological time scale) are much bigger "killers of life". Ask the dinosaurs.

The climate is probably the runner-up. Sure, in recent years (again, geologically speaking) humans have had some impact but on the grand scale of things, this is meaningless. It may impact ourselves but "life on the planet"? Hardly. Our planet has been unhospitable and uninhabitable to most life forms inclucing human life for most of the 4.5 billion years it has been a-round (heheh, little geology geek joke there).

From a human-centered world view, the biggest killers probably used to be infectious diseases and viruses, many of which are spread by insects so I would add bugs to the list as well. Thanks to science, some of the really big killers in this group have been neutralized.

Now what do Taosim, Buddhism, Shamanism and Wicca have to show for themselves in this respect? I dare say nothing.

By all means, be a Wiccan but please stop agitating against the biggest force in the quest to relieve human suffering we have ever known: science.

If you think science is just as destructive as institutional religion, please be aware that the tens of thousands of victims of unethical scientific research and practices are nothing compared to the tens of millions of people killed in the name of some god or other. That doesn't make the abuses right, BTW, but it doesn't make the cold hard facts wrong either.

So yeah, go right ahead dissing science on your computer with an internet connection. Or, you could try to channel your message to the spirits of the world with fire and incense and see how that works.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 05:26PM by rt.

No. It only comes close when religion employs technology derived from science in order to eliminate people.

and by the way, it needs to be pointed out that SCIENCE is the medium making this dialogue possible, via the internet, NOT religion.

Goddess's titties science gets such a bad rap but each day yoy have people fighting against diseases, fighting to save lives and make the world better. Many of us live longer better lives thanks to science. Including me. Yea it has been used as aforce of evil but do not throw thr baby out with the bathwater.

"Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater can go both way."

Disclaimer: I do NOT believe in religion...

Wouldn't the same argument be true for having hope, faith, positive attitude, prayer for those in need, etc etc., instead of throwing all spirituality out the window too?

I just don't everything is so black and white.

Hope and positivity is not so bad. Sometimes i think aspects of religion can hold us back. It is not enoug to just have a positive attitude the way those The Secret people think. You do have to work as well. But there is so much anti sciece negativity. It is a bit depressing. Science is wonderful. Maybe science gives us faith and all of that. Even if it is all chemical it is still worth it

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2015 01:13AM by steve benson.

Neither Science nor religion kills people.
It's the misuse of them by people with some sort of agenda that does the killing.

For example, the whale-killing story is not really about science. It's about the whaling industry.

As far as Japnn is concerned, it is using "research science" as a disingenuous cover for killing whales so that that rich people can pay big bucks to eat them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 06:42PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as Japnn is concerned, it is using
> "research science" as a disingenuous cover for
> killing whales so that that rich people can pay
> big bucks to eat them.


So, when someone co-opts spiritual thinking, then all religion is blanketed as bad. But, when someone co-opts science the same way (which happens a lot), then suddenly science is not at fault? Can you have it both ways like that, according to your preference?

Isn’t that what they call cherry picking?

"the 'church' is perfect, the members are not."

. . . being seen by cosmonauts in their failing orbiting space station; big white gleaming flying cities of God zipping through outer space; angels visibly dive bombing the Sun; etc.,

Next step: Claim that these tales represent credible beliefs (as some believers on this board have actually done).

After that, we can look for any compelling empirical scientific data that indicates whether these tales are ridiculous or not.

If you have any others of your own that you'd be willing to subject to evaluation, you can list them here.

Good luck. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2015 01:25AM by steve benson.

From the OP:

> The point I want
> to make is that you can’t divorce the
> ‘scientist’ from the responsibility for how
> the end product of their ‘thinking’ is
> eventually utilized.

This idea is discussed by Carl Sagan in his brilliant book Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark. The 16th chapter is entitled When Scientists Know Sin, and it talks about things such as the Manhattan Project.

I highly recommend this book. It is food for the critical thinker. Sagan states that one of the objectives of the book is to help people develop a "Baloney Detection Kit".

Response to rt:

I’ll begin my response by saying that many biological, environmental and geological scientists think we are currently in the middle of a large scale extinction event right at this very moment, one caused by humans this time, and equivalent in scale to any of the previous past mass extinctions (based on comparing loss of biodiversity, which is actually what the extinction crisis always boils down too, regardless of what triggers it.)

You say:

>> Now what do Taosim, Buddhism, Shamanism and Wicca have to show for themselves in this respect? I dare say nothing. <<

>> By all means, be a Wiccan but please stop agitating against the biggest force in the quest to relieve human suffering we have ever known: science. <<

Well, Taosim, Buddhism, Shamanism and Wicca eliminate suffering by eliminating fear of death. Science and god fearing religions increase fear of death, and consequently cause people to panic and seek to artificially interfere in the natural cycle of life. Then they start wars, and panic over scarce resources, etc, etc. Another example is the way we have science keeping people alive long past their usefulness or desire to even remain alive. That’s a fear based attitude causing us to unbalance nature in many ways.

Antibiotic resistance shows an example of how nature is trying to rebalance our attempt to interfere with natural checks to overpopulation through death. If you knew what I did about death, then you wouldn’t be so afraid of it, and you wouldn’t screw up the environment by trying to interfere with it and avoid it. Death comes when it’s time for it, but until it’s time for it, it doesn’t come at all. Many people don’t realize that. That’s why shamans used to do spirit quests; to prove death doesn’t come before it’s time, even if you tempt it. But it takes a lack of fear to test that out.

See my response to the post below about quitting my unethical computer science career, but yet how I can still use a computer to communicate. Do you see the nuance there? Communicating with a computer is benign, but computers putting people out of jobs is not. Yet both are actions using a computer. Just as with computers, spirituality isn’t all black or white either. There is good, and there is bad, it’s not all or nothing.

Finally, I really just wanted to share my point of view. Arguing about it with people who hold diametrically opposing beliefs is rarely productive. If you’re meant to be enlightened, spirit will tap you on the shoulder and let you know. If not, then maybe next time? The weather’s great over here on the island, by the way. So, do you fear death? We have some nice incense that could help you with that, and some cliffs to leap off too, if you’re interested in a spirit quest. The amazing thing is, the more you accept death, the more it leaves you alone. The more you fear it, the more it stalks you. It’s a fascinating paradox. Science is a paradox too.




Response to smirkorama:

>> and by the way, it needs to be pointed out that SCIENCE is the medium making this dialogue possible, via the internet, NOT religion. <<

I have no ethical dilemma over using a computer to communicate.

However, I quit my career in IT because all I was doing was automating people out of work wherever I went, and making the boys at the top rich beyond their needs. I wasn’t helping; I was part of a problem, not any solution.

See the subtle nuance?

Greed is caused by fear. P.S. I was rewarded for stopping helping the bad guys; I gained through making a sacrifice. No fear.

How many whales were killed to make lamps and candles to light churches? Thanks to new ways from science, whales fat is no longer needed. How many whales has science SAVED by replacing the need to kill whales for profit?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 09:16PM by MJ.

Science exists to prove itself wrong.
Religion exists to prove itself right.
Take your pick.

Science is true
Religion is woo

Now that's just my opinion. So flame, shame and blame me if you will. But when my refrigerator is on the fritz I call a technician, not a priest. And when my mind is troubled, I call a psychiatrist, not a bishop. If I'm hungry, I call for pizza, not Jesus. If I seek knowledge, I'm going with Google, not King James.

That's my default position.

Consider how much you claim science kills the next time you need an antibiotic, or any medication.

Consider how much you claim science kills when you get a drink of water out of your kitchen faucet that is safe to drink with the waste water also properly treated by municipality.

Consider how much you claim science kills the next time you get hungry and eat food created by agricultural and soil science. Understand our planet could not support our human population without advanced agriculture.

The question you ask does have real world ramifications. Our planet, and the people on it are going to cook because of this obfuscation you are attempting to ignorantly promote.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2015 10:11PM by deco.

The planet is cooking because of science and it's inability to moderate itself. Something enlightened thinking could have helped with. Maybe it still can. You seem to be unfamiliar with the change in outlook raising one's consciousness can bring about. Do no harm, don't be afraid, fear brings greed. Science has it's place, but it needs to be coupled with sanity.

Rules Reminder......

Sock-puppeting (posting under two or more names, particularly if they are some form of "anon") is strongly discouraged on RfM...most particularly if the sock puppets are in the same thread.

Posters who do this always run the risk of their posts being deleted---especially if those posts are reported...

...as just happened in this thread.

;)

Well, I see others altering their identity when they want to express something that they don’t want associated with their regular identity on the board, such as a sexually related post or something else deeply personal, so I apologize if I was being out of line.

I will discontinue my conversation. But, that other poster … I believe they had anon in their moniker … was not me bolstering my own position. It truly was another person’s opinions on the topic. So, that’s too bad they got their posts deleted, they really were another person.

My apologies for causing a stir, and also to the person who had their posts removed, adieu.

scienceandgodskeptic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I see others altering their identity when
> they want to express something that they don’t
> want associated with their regular identity on the
> board, such as a sexually related post or
> something else deeply personal, so I apologize if
> I was being out of line.

A non-regular username is legitimate is this instance...sometimes, for example, necessary details in a post may be identifying in real life---especially when combined with a "regular" username.


> I will discontinue my conversation. But, that
> other poster … I believe they had anon in their
> moniker … was not me bolstering my own position.
> It truly was another person’s opinions on the
> topic. So, that’s too bad they got their posts
> deleted, they really were another person.

It may not have been "your" posts that were (directly) deleted, but rather: the post(s) above you in the thread that you were replying to.

When the "post(s) above" are deleted, that operation also deletes the replies to that post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2015 01:41AM by tevai.

scienceandgodskeptic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The planet is cooking because of science and it's
> inability to moderate itself. Something
> enlightened thinking could have helped with. Maybe
> it still can. You seem to be unfamiliar with the
> change in outlook raising one's consciousness can
> bring about. Do no harm, don't be afraid, fear
> brings greed. Science has it's place, but it needs
> to be coupled with sanity.


I would submit it is not the duty of science to moderate itself. Rather the duty of science is to find new discoveries, and question everything.

It is the job of society to regulate, moderate, and use knowledge wisely. Nuclear energy can be a great thing. Detonating nuclear weapons, not so much.

Science demands itself to be questioned. Religion is just the opposite, as when questioned, must resort to ad hominem attacks against the questioner.

please tell us exactly what "science" is.

Science is a systematic method for discovering facts about the world we live in. What people do with those facts (wisely or unwisely)is not science. Science doesn't kill people. What people do with science isn't science. I think science is amoral. What people do with the knowledge arrived at by use of the scientific method can be moral or immoral.

Exactly.

So what this all boils down to is this: essentially by any means and rationality available, humans kill humans.

Good post!

However, people did those things, alas.

And people will do even worse things going forward, alas again.

Science merely gives us the ability to magnify exponentially our worst instincts. And obviously religion/philosophy/the humanities have utterly failed to educate those instincts to be at least a little less bad.

Human