Is the world better off without science and technology?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I don't think so. In healthcare, e.g., thanks to vaccines and antibiotics, people live longer and in greater comfort
(just read that a new, more effective, vaccine against shingles is coming out).

Picky people will focus on the negatives of science such as nuclear weapons. Again, on balance, I can't see how we can live without.

PhilX

[thedoc]

I don't think so. In healthcare, e.g., thanks to vaccines and antibiotics, people live longer and in greater comfort
(just read that a new, more effective, vaccine against shingles is coming out).

Picky people will focus on the negatives of science such as nuclear weapons. Again, on balance, I can't see how we can live without.

PhilX

Those same "picky people" are probably writing to you on a computer, which is a result of science and technology, otherwise they would just be some silly person screaming at the trees in the woods.

[Skip]

What constitutes science and technology?
https://www.wired.com/2011/01/new-crow-tools/
Like this? or this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4083517.stm
Where does it start?
The world would definitely be better off without humans, but
science is the expression of intelligence and curiosity; it is the investigation of the world.
Technology is the expression of inventiveness - the practical use of discoveries.
You won't get rid of them without eliminating all intelligent species.

[thedoc]

What constitutes science and technology?

The simplest explanation is that which does not occur in nature, certainly some complex objects occur but other objects are made by humans and do not occur naturally. I think that 'man made' would also qualify in most cases.

[Greta]

The world would definitely be better off without humans ...

Without humans large, complex life forms on Earth will soon been eliminated by our ageing Sun anyway - a matter of millions of years out of the biosphere's four billion year lifespan.

Humans have been highly destructive to ecosystems, but the initial trigger was the understandable desire of our ancestors to insulate themselves and offspring from the perils and privations of the wild. To create a "protective bubble" around them. That involved forming ever larger groups and aggressively clearing space around settlements, and in time the space was logically used for useful plants and animals. Now we have cities and their surrounding networks.

Yet without humans, four billion years of life will be lost when the Earth's surface is sterilised by the Sun. Long before then, life will be impossible for large animals. With humans, the story has a chance of continuing on other worlds, or at least some panspermia services can be rendered.

More practical-minded types than I am don't much care for far flung concerns, but I personally like the idea of the Earth's evolution continuing rather than soon ending.

[Eodnhoj7]

Science and Technology have always been around in some degree or another. The problem is that they have been "inverted" and in this respect cause many of the problems we see today.

This inversion has been, partially, due to the problem of the foundations we observe today in the modern sciences and mathematics. They have no foundations so to speak. Part of this inversion process has been rooted in the nature of the Point as a quantity of 1 and quality of Unity, being inverted to a quantity of zero and quality of "dimensionless, non-being".

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22923



The origin of the modern world stems from the foundations of these sciences being founded during the enlightenment...the problem is that there are no foundations of any real kind.

There is not unity in as modern science has discounted an Ether, the only real source of unity that exists spatially.

So to answer question, yes and no at the same time in different respects.

[Skip]

What constitutes science and technology?

The simplest explanation is that which does not occur in nature, certainly some complex objects occur but other objects are made by humans and do not occur naturally. I think that 'man made' would also qualify in most cases.

I don't think science and technology are objects. I think they are activities. I think they are activities in which all intelligent life participates. They are not man-made, though they may be man-claimed or man-defined at present.

Greta -- Without humans large, complex life forms on Earth will soon been eliminated by our ageing Sun anyway - a matter of millions of years out of the biosphere's four billion year lifespan.

+/- 5 billion years to burnout is what I've heard.
Not sure that qualifies as "soon" - or, anyway, not as soon as the 50 or so years, if we continue as we're going.
You know we've pretty much killed off the flying insects, right? https://www.inquisitr.com/4569224/flyin ... -underway/ They're not only low on the food-chain, but functionally indispensable. No mosquito larvae, no tadpoles or minnows or baby swallows or dragonflies.... no bees or butterflies, no pregnant flowers, no seeds....
Long story short - well, we're talking flash fiction now.