In his book "Our final hour," Cambridge professor and Britain's "Astronomer Royal" Martin Rees predicts humanity has no more than a 50/50 chance of surviving the next century, and that by 2020, millions of people perish due to scientific error or terror. Some would call him prescient, while others would interpret his words as alarmist, resembling a layer cake with environmental fears on top of nuclear fears on top of chemical and biological threats, ad infinitum. With sci-fi flare, he warns fled technology, human clones and the ability to insert memory chips into the brain.
Doomsday predictors get much the same respect as the "toxic fumes" sign at a local service, they give their wisdom, but we yawn. Situations that seem shocking and overwhelming, even potentially lethal, tend to ignore. Attention to more immediate and "American" means, such as consumer goods and personal advancement, monopolize our daily thoughts. It is probably foolhardy and indicative of "another doomsday, another dollar" mentality.
Rees is not a lone voice on the scientific stage. "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" reports we have seven minutes to our final bow at midnight. Other reputable experts assume that the "gray goo" or nanotechnological catastrophe is the greatest threat. This invention includes a miniature, self-replicating machines that gnaw away at the environment, while devoid of life. It may not be deliberate sabotage - as in technological warfare, one nation against another -. But could result from laboratory accidents
Astronomers say a large asteroid that could destroy large parts of our planet in the next 30 years. Others point to atom-crashing tests and their potential for lethal strangelet scenario. Strangelets are malformed subatomic matter, which could distort all normal matter and dissolve the earth in seconds.
There are streams of alerts from environmental experts that our natural disasters are increasing. They warn of climate change and tell us the world's species die at a rate 1000 times greater than it was before human existence, because of habitat destruction and introduction of non-indigenous species in the ecosystem. Their conclusion? If you do not reverse the damage, the Earth itself will be extinct.
We should open our minds to doomsday predictions? If they accept, what is the next step to secure or increase our chances of planetary survival?
in his book, "Science, Money and Politics," Daniel Greenberg follows the trail of doubt. He condemns what he believes to be self-serving, greedy scientific community with its bungled investigation, conflict of interest and knowledge that you never see the light of day due to suppression by corporate sponsors. However, it seems to be overly cynical, embellished perspective, there are certainly many scientists dedicated to discovering and social responsibility, except for any personal gain. And we should not forget that it offers insights can be controversial at a cost, proponents of "radical" theories are often subjected to ridicule and professional
.Despite the skepticism, "Pascal's Wager" game plan seems a good bet. That basically means that you should not gamble with eternity, but instead encourage the scientific community to take precautions because of Armageddon does not allow a second chance. It is better to err on the side of life, even if it means that some black holes will go unexplored and some research grants will be withdrawn.
caution means the building plans - such as shields and containment measures - in new technologies, so that if the experiment goes awry, the safety net will start in his place. This means that the scientific community needs to better police itself. This means the board or the community - both domestic and international - should be established for the supervision and regulation, such as Albert Einstein proposed in 1947 to maintain peace in the world. Many nation-states and multinational corporations known for his fight, even minimal efforts to regulate dangerous technology, and they must be confronted.
There are pragmatic obstacles to negotiate when you are trying to impose rules on private persons or authorities in the countries of dissenters, but the ozone hole "near disaster" shows how the world can cooperate when it comes to life and death issues. As cultures dovetail, communication and growth, as well as the boundaries become more permeable, reduces the figurative world, it will be easier to impose structure and scientific parameters of nations, seem to be fighting today
science has to shift its course and find new mountains to climb. It seems to us signals. Due to our materialistic bent as a culture, our cursory approval of "progress" and our captivation with the Prometheus like aura of technology, we subtly ask the scientific community to scale those mountains that are the most (large awards can be obtained), the easiest (the path of least resistance) or the highest profit-oriented (grant money from special interest or focus on reducing labor so companies can realize higher revenue) than those who have the highest environmental and peace for improvement.
research community is a river of creativity and the noise energy that could instead be directed towards the rivers and forests. It could move towards ecological preservation and restoration, peaceful alternatives to conflict and the promotion of life on this planet.
We know the cultural transition is underway when the news after fires, earthquakes and other disasters address the impact on natural systems and nonhuman species, but only human and economic consequences, such as the number of homes lost. Our capitalist culture thrives on the fact that nature is free, which in turn, reinforces the idea that the expendable and of no value. This reality must change. Our reality must change. And science must change. She has to move towards peace and ecology. It's as plain as doomsday.
0 comments:
Post a Comment