Scientific and technological progress might change people’s capabilities or incentives in ways that would destabilize civilization.
A general ability to stabilize a vulnerable world would require greatly amplified capacities for preventive policing and global governance.
my primary question here is what do you think, which other methods do you think might yield same or better options to prevent self-destruction or major destabilization? — SpaceDweller
I think maturation is needed, including moral maturation. — Leontiskos
But the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and so is the population only as mature as it's most immoral (or insane) individual. — SpaceDweller
I don't think so.Therefore global government and policing supported by global government is it appears the most effective solution to prevent self-destruction caused by scientific progress. — SpaceDweller
Why use scientific progress and not simply technological progress? — ssu
There's a lot of examples that show that we aren't as vulnerable as earlier: we don't die as early as before. If there are bad harvests, we don't in the industrialized World die of famine. Actually famines have become more rare. We don't just have to raise our hands up and hope that the God's wouldn't be angry at us, we have an idea just how we changing (destroying?) our environment. — ssu
So you could think of the individualism-framed problem as a problem of the ratio between adults and toddlers, and the ensuing probability that any given random individual will be a "toddler." The government solution is based on the idea that a minority of adults will maintain control over time, thus preventing toddlers from accessing dangerous weapons. — Leontiskos
Must be really some awesome technology of the future, because the fact is that even an all-out nuclear war between US/Russia and China wouldn't devastate everything and kill everybody. It might be a well respected mantra to say to voice opposition to nuclear weapons, but destroying everything is a lot harder than we think.Yes, there are many benefits of scientific progress but the thing is that only one wrong technology can devastate all benefits. — SpaceDweller
My father was a professor of virology, and while he has now passed away, he did live to see the Covid pandemic. What he was really afraid back then was the possibility that the Covid-virus had indeed been created by research and then had spread out of the laboratory. He personally believed it was a real, worrisome possibility and feared what damage such a thing would do to medical research and in the trust in medicine in general. With seven million deaths, one million dead in the US, you can bet that it to be a laboratory "Oops!" isn't something people actually want to hear.I don't think science is inherently evil because of this, only that it has the potential of self-destruction if not controlled. — SpaceDweller
There's still going on that original science stuff, no matter how much studies are directed by grants. — ssu
Must be really some awesome technology of the future, because the fact is that even an all-out nuclear war between US/Russia and China wouldn't devastate everything and kill everybody. It might be a well respected mantra to say to voice opposition to nuclear weapons, but destroying everything is a lot harder than we think. — ssu
Agree but I think it's not wrong to say "scientific progress" when addressing this question because without scientific progress there is no technological progress.There really is a difference between science and technology. Your simply not using the definition of technology and just putting it together with everything being 'science'. However there's a reason why the standard definitions are different. Let's define first what they mean: — ssu
A lot of people do think that science is just one part of the process of how our technology will improve and that tech is just there to improve our lives. But talk to a scientist and you will notice that they are actually interested in science itself. That isn't something irrelevant.If science is just a means to technology, and science is funded almost entirely by a desire for technology (or other forms of power), then science is not about speculative knowledge in any real sense. We have seen science moving in this direction for hundreds of years now.
You are right that in theory science should be this separate, autonomous thing. But in practice it turns out not to be. — Leontiskos
So we agree that it's the potentially devastating technology, or the use of this tech, which is the real threat.The point is that scientific progress leads to potentially devastating technologies. — SpaceDweller
The question is, does scientific progress ultimately lead to self-destruction or major destabilization of human civilization? — SpaceDweller
Every 'civilization' is always most vulnerable to (thermodynamic and/or information) entropy. — 180 Proof
Everything will be just engineers improving current machines and concepts. But once you have developed the pencil, the written book, the spoon etc. there's not much to improve there. Spoons and books have stayed the same for quite a while. No incentive or reason to improve a technology that works so well. — ssu
I suspect so. Global travel increases the likelihood of a global pandemic, excessive industrialisation increases the use of non-renewable resources and the likelihood of harmful climate change, and automated systems controlled by an artificial intelligence is vulnerable to coding errors and sabotage. — Michael
Yet we won't get "food replicators", at least in the way in Star Trek, without new scientific insights.Fire was first invention to prepare meals followed by stoves and now wait until food replicator is discovered like the one in star trek series. — SpaceDweller
Again, just what are the devastating effects caused by scientific progress?Main problem about this hypothesis is how to contain potential devastating effects caused by scientific progress. — SpaceDweller
Ok, but why isn't then this more of a problem of basically the abuse of technology?I did agree that stopping research is not an option and so does the linked paper say it's unrealistic and costly, so this is not a solution, global governance and policing is a better solution but not popular, so we seek something better than that. — SpaceDweller
So the world government idea becomes even more undesirable in the eyes of those who oppose it, because it implies censorship of destructive knowledge further raising suspicion and conspiracies about world government. — SpaceDweller
The meaning of "water boils at 100℃" is what we are able to do with it. — Banno
Again, just what are the devastating effects caused by scientific progress? — ssu
Without scientific progress there sure would be devastating effects. Not just potential. Have you thought about this question from this viewpoint? — ssu
So let's assume there wouldn't have been any Renaissance and further age of Enlightenment in the West, but the Church would have held power as in the Muslim World. Where would be now? — ssu
I guess because the purpose of devastating tech (nukes) is to destroy, there is no abuse since there is only one purpose.Ok, but why isn't then this more of a problem of basically the abuse of technology? — ssu
Tech has evolved at an astronomical pace while the species itself hasn't. Given this disparity it is quite possible we could destroy ourselves with it. But it is for this same reason that a world government is out of the question. — NOS4A2
Rather, the objection is that any solution which requires that a small minority maintain power indefinitely will eventually fail. — Leontiskos
Yes agree, we're not evolved enough and are behind tech, the paper however says that it's politics that's behind tech and suggests that improvements in politics should be improved, suggesting world government and policing which is a political matter.
Government is a kind of technology, except it’s an immoral one. It’s premised on monopoly, plunder, and coercion. Not only that but it’s entirely inefficient. Besides, Government has been the greatest progenitor of the threat of mass-extinction since the meteor. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.