Thread: How can science ever benefit the environment?

Results 1 to 3 of 3

  1. #1
    Join Date Mar 2017
    Posts 33
    Rep Power 0

    Default How can science ever benefit the environment?

    We know that if we look back at history. The less people knew the healthier their environment was. The more knowledge they gained the more parasitic they have become and the more we invest in science the worst our environment becomes.
  2. #2
    Join Date Mar 2017
    Location The Moon,
    Posts 5
    Rep Power 0


    You're not posing a question. You're making a false, and rather stupid statement.

    Also, to quote my favorite political philosopher, and the creator of Social Ecology,

    Unless we realize that the present market society, structured around the brutally competitive imperative of “grow or die,” is a thoroughly impersonal, self-operating mechanism, we will falsely tend to blame technology as such or population growth as such for environmental problems. We will ignore their root causes, such as trade for profit, industrial expansion, and the identification of “progress” with corporate self-interest. In short, we will tend to focus on the symptoms of a grim social pathology rather than on the pathology itself, and our efforts will be directed toward limited goals whose attainment is more cosmetic than curative.
    - Murray Bookchin

  3. #3
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 771
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5


    We know that if we look back at history. The less people knew the healthier their environment was. The more knowledge they gained the more parasitic they have become and the more we invest in science the worst our environment becomes.
    The environment is such a strange word, because what really makes the environment healthy? We could say the best thing for the environment to get rid of all the humans couldn't we? Since what we are really saying, when we talk about preserving the environment, is to rid it of human influence, or really to reduce the amount of effects on the environment due to human development. Now, was the environment healthy when humans were still living in the jungle? Obviously yes since there is nobody to cause pollution, but what is the environment to us as humans if not our sphere of living? Today we can be hurt by toxic waste and CO2 pollution etc but I can argue that in fact we are vastly better now that we are not being chased down by jaguars and catching malaria from mosquitoes.

    Human development or scientific development has been this conquest of man over nature and the environment. And it is this same scientific development that environmental science today is itself attempting to do. To create a world where we can have the internet and jet airplanes, while reducing the negative effects on humans. The only reason why we even classify environmental science as a separate category is because scientific development like fossil fuels, mining, modern agriculture etc, has grown so large and vast that it needs its own science to develop solutions to these common problems, Co2 for example has tons of sources, so we fight CO2 or we tackle issues related to Co2 pollution and call it environmental science.

    What in fact would be the point of preserving the environment if human beings never existed? The planet was once lifeless and experts agree it will eventually become completely lifeless again. So when you say when humans knew less, the environment was "healthier" but thats complete nonsense because you are defining the environment in relation to human development, the environment of the moon is completely healthy by these standards because it is free of human development. Is that really healthier though? Is the lifeless wasteland that is the moon technically "healthier" than the earth? No i dont think you can say that

    What we are really left with is in an issue of rich versus poor, since the wealthy themselves live in almost pristine virgin lands, their air is free of pollution, their water is clean and pure, while at the same time these people dump nuclear waste in the rivers of some impoverished country to save money, they drill for oil and spill it in the gulf they dont care if it spills because their water is fine, they just wont buy their shrimp from there any more. They dont have any private interest in preventing pollution in that region. They would however fight like hell if someone spilled oil allover their 62 acre villa. If the water systems of Beverley hills were as polluted as flint michigan they wouldve fixed it a long time ago.

    So the question is can capitalism develop scientific advancements that benefit everyone, I think marx would say that it cannot since the needs of the poor will always be in conflict with the wants and needs of the rich
  4. The Following User Says Thank You to willowtooth For This Useful Post:

Similar Threads

  1. How Nonviolence Protects the State.
    By PhoenixAsh in forum RevLeft Articles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21st April 2014, 22:34
  2. 'The French New Right In The Year 2000' - Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier
    By FreeSpeechisBourgeois in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 22nd November 2011, 00:05
  3. Universal History and the Possibility of a Utopia.
    By vajrakrishna in forum Theory
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 24th May 2010, 00:18
  4. The Infectiousness of Terrorist Ideology
    By ichneumon in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4th April 2006, 13:34

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts