Future Science . . . Or Not . . .

All the other boards are going strong … with the lone exception of this one.  So I thought I'd jot down a few things to get this started.

If we consider where we've been and how far we've come in such a short span of time, the outlook for science in our future may shock even us who are accustomed to daily revelations.

We need not discuss here how to re-structure our science disciplines, with the lone exception of stem cell research and development.  Science is for all intents and purposes venerated today.  I see in our tomorrow a narrowing of the gap between our faith in a Higher Power and our faith in science.  They are now and will continue to compliment one another.

What I do see in our future as a huge issue is … ethics.  Where do we draw the line?  Should we draw a line?  The conflict around using or not using human stem cells to combat disease and cure conditions is but the opening volley.  Medical and scientific ethicists and legal scholars will have their hands full with tomorrows breakthroughs.

What ground-rules should we consider, if any?

Re: Future Science . . . Or Not . . .

Delete it I say. We can comeback to science. But on the other hand, I read some remarkable stuff on Chinese science, and that they see no need to distinguish between their science and philosophy. And that historically their scientist have relied heavily on the I Ching. Amazing stuff.

Re: Future Science . . . Or Not . . .

Drawing a line, in such a thing like science. Is only postponing the problem. As it has been done with line drawing for the last say thousands of years.
Humans are curious for the truth. Development will go on. And we can't stop it.
The church tried, they failed Miserably. What we see happening these days, is that branches of science are starting to reach their limits, in where we are actually traversing into another branch. As Nanoscience is going for biology, and quantum. And chemistry to quantum. And Math to the far limits of philosopy. The destinations are beginning to become similar. We do no longer need any god to explain things. Or let alone make us believe in how much we are in control of the world.
We are only limited by the amount of ready knowledge we have, and the amount of direct intelligence we have to process that to modern day situations.

Ethicism is a very important part of any branch. But most development is inevitable. Cloneing, human genetic manipulation, nuclear fussion, atomic energy and many others. As long as they give us well working solutions to modern day problems, we will use them. Simple as that.

Re: Future Science . . . Or Not . . .

As Domus says, lines between formal disciplines in science are blurring. I recently listened to a lecture by Richard Feynman from the 60s and already at that time he was pointing out that some sciences such as chemistry were already nearly a branch of physics, as quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics were found to explain the operations of chemistry. And that was over 40 years ago.

Feynman (who is my muse when it comes to science, outside geology) viewed science as finding out how the world works, that's it in a nutshell. He believed that god was used to explain things we didn't understand, and he believed there was plenty of mystery not yet explained.

He also distinguished between science and technology, while acknowledging that this distinction was not generally made by the general public. Here is where ethics becomes paramount. What, at the current point in human history, is ethical action, is a question which will be answered differently at different times. What we can do is not always what we should do, and this should has not always been addressed in modern times, with numerous unintended results… and that is another big issue: unintended consequences, as well as asymmetry of risk.

Re: Future Science . . . Or Not . . .

Feynman also played the bongos, don't forget. He was a wonderful model of a real human being who loved science passionately - but also loved LIFE passionately. I should delete the word “but,” really. There need not be a contradiction there.

As for the ethics of continuing, of expanding our scientific knowledge and manipulation of the world… Well, manipulation is what we DO. It is how we survive and extend ourselves, whether we're talking about using simple tools in order to get food, or using medical technology to cure disease (or maintain an erection, for that matter). The answer is sure not to just stop manipulating our world. If we were to attempt such a thing, why not just stop all action? Why not just stop living? If we truly want humans to stop having an effect on our world, then we all need to just die off. That's the only way to make that happen.

However, I do agree that when we talk about ethical application of science and technology -or any other form of tool - we could go a long way by thinking longer-term. Instead of looking for the quick answers, look for the longterm answers.

For instance, explore how to live healthy lives from birth to old age, versus looking for a magic pill that will drop the pounds when we suddenly realize we're fat at 35.

Explore how to build clean, fast mass-transit that can enable people to cross a continent to share and commune with people at great distances… instead of exploring new fuel sources that continue to support individual transportation that does nothing for our long-term health as a society or a race.

b