Can science produce a utopian world?

[Trurl]

Can science produce a utopian world?

and

What is your personal goal to the science you do?

 

(edited by mod)

[iNow]

Define utopia. 

Interestingly, this addresses both questions. 

[MSC]

You've heard the expression; one mans trash is another mans treasure?

Well, one persons utopia is anothers dystopia.

I suppose the closest to objective utopia definition would be; can science produce a world that is physiologically and psychologically beneficial in all ways to life while not being maladaptive to anyone despite amy subjective objections to the world science creates?

iNow would you like to answer to this definition or tell me what is wrong with it? It's probably what you'd describe as a Pragmatic definition of ethical utopia.

[dimreepr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

Quote

The word utopia was coined from Ancient Greek by Sir Thomas More in 1516. “Utopia” comes from Greek: οὐ (“not”) and τόπος (“place”) which translates as “no-place” and literally means any non-existent society, when ‘described in considerable detail’. However, in standard usage, the word's meaning has shifted and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society.^[4]

We can try to write a constitution that's better than now (and succeeds now), but we all know how that works out; given time, misinterpretation and self interest...

Maybe science can create an overlord (robot/computer) that limits misinterpretation and self interest, but that's gonna get old, real quick... 😉

9 hours ago, MSC said:

iNow would you like to answer to this definition or tell me what is wrong with it? It's probably what you'd describe as a Pragmatic definition of ethical utopia.

Relax dude we're here to discuss the subject matter, not poke at a sleeping bear. 🖖

Edited October 12, 2020 by dimreepr

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

Can science produce a utopian world?

and

What is your personal goal to the science you do?

!

Moderator Note

As these are largely unrelated, please open a new thread if you want people to weigh in on the personal goal question.

 

[MSC]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Relax dude we're here to discuss the subject matter, not poke at a sleeping bear.

It might be friendly though and I want to give it a hug. 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, MSC said:

It might be friendly though and I want to give it a hug. 

Well, time will tell...

[Tunnel]

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

Can science produce a utopian world?

and

What is your personal goal to the science you do?

 

(edited by mod)

Science was responsible for every single device that causes pollution so science is ruining any chance of utopia.  On the other hand perhaps utopia already exist and we just need to find it, and if science can produce interstellar travel then utopia can be found instead of made

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Tunnel said:

Science was responsible for every single device that causes pollution so science is ruining any chance of utopia.  On the other hand perhaps utopia already exist and we just need to find it, and if science can produce interstellar travel then utopia can be found instead of made

“Science” did not decide to deploy these devices. 

I think you’re overthinking the issue. Utopia is impossible because what people think is utopia will vary across a population. You can’t optimize a system with so many variables, since improving some aspect of society will invariably be at the expense of some other aspect. Just as you’ve pointed out that devices pollute, so despite any advantage such an invention might bring, there’s usually a negative associated with it. It becomes a matter of whether the benefits outweigh the negatives, rather than becoming a utopia.

[Saiyan300Warrior]

As a Christian I am to say no. God has that planned for us in the afterlife.

Plus as that guy or she or she he said people have different views on utopia ,but can narrow down to the desires of the body, food and water for everyone , maybe AI women who look like models for brothels for sexual desires , maybe virtual world very realistic and it stimulates the mind, exercise for the body, maybe science can HELP in building a realistic uptopia , but through thinking I don't think that will happen, too muxh damage already and it is like snowball gathering snow falling down hill the future is that snow ball

God bless homie

[Dord]

18 hours ago, Trurl said:

Can science produce a utopian world?

For what it's worth... I consider such social engineering to be a human objective, whereas science is just a means to an end.

And as humans are so diverse, tribal and argumentative the classical vision of Utopia is IMO impossible. (I cite the Bolsheviks from revolutionary Russia and then the Soviet Union as an example of a failed Utopian 'experiment' for want of a better word.)

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Saiyan300Warrior said:

As a Christian I am to say no. God has that planned for us in the afterlife.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is that more than one religion exists, which is an example of not being able to optimize the system. How will you have a utopia and allow people that hate those of certain religions?

 

[Trurl]

I asked both questions to ask if science is enough to “fix” the world. As scientist (amateur include) we want a better world. But do we work in vain? For those old enough to remember the start of the internet, remember when people called it ideal because everything was anonymous. No race, no gender, only knowledge.

 

I am interesting to see what everyone posts. What if the best world for humans is chaotic? I mean a world we live in. And maybe it has the potential to be a utopia but we can’t reach it. Is science going to realize the potential of a world that already exists?

 

And you want you science to do well, but is it enough. And what as a scientist is the goal of your creations if we can’t fix the world? Like one post said is it an end in itself? And if science could not reach the utopia would you consider religion?

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

I am interesting to see what everyone posts. What if the best world for humans is chaotic? I mean a world we live in. And maybe it has the potential to be a utopia but we can’t reach it. Is science going to realize the potential of a world that already exists?

iNow already asked for you definition of utopia. You also need to define “best” in this context. 

Is “best” meaning that the maximum number of people live in comfort, or that a minimum don’t suffer much, or what? (these measures would need to be quantified or defined)

”the best world” is way, way too vague

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

I asked both questions to ask if science is enough to “fix” the world. As scientist (amateur include) we want a better world. But do we work in vain? For those old enough to remember the start of the internet, remember when people called it ideal because everything was anonymous. No race, no gender, only knowledge.

 

I am interesting to see what everyone posts. What if the best world for humans is chaotic? I mean a world we live in. And maybe it has the potential to be a utopia but we can’t reach it. Is science going to realize the potential of a world that already exists?

 

And you want you science to do well, but is it enough. And what as a scientist is the goal of your creations if we can’t fix the world? Like one post said is it an end in itself? And if science could not reach the utopia would you consider religion?

 Would you consider utopia to mean nothing more than a smile; in the religion of, the smiley people?

[Trurl]

I thought this topic would bring up the limitations of science. I don’t mean a limitation of thought. But does not one scientific solution lead to more problems. Like the atomic bomb it ends war with Japan but adds the potential to destroy the planet. And I don’t think the scientist are at fault because they have a drive to create. But no matter how smart they claim to be they never consider how others will use the invention. They are foolish. I’m not saying this to insult them. They are smart but so stupid in other ways. I saw the interview with Dr. Fauci and he predicts Covid 4 years ago. Doesn’t this sound an alarm?

 

I think a utopian world will happen when we learn to control science. And by control I don’t mean oppressing it I mean an agreement not to misuse it. That would happen by the attitudes and belief of man. But how do you propose to do that without religion? I mean you could use psychology or sociology. But would these social sciences then be considered religion. It is not the laws of religion most scientist abject to but the spiritual parts. “Do not murder,” makes sense to the scientist.

 

Thoughts

[iNow]

Hammers also sometimes smash fingers. That’s bad, but overall hammers are quite useful and safe when used properly. 

Much like hammers, science is a tool and the character and capabilities of the practitioner matter much more. 

[noquacks]

17 hours ago, Trurl said:

I thought this topic would bring up the limitations of science. I don’t mean a limitation of thought. But does not one scientific solution lead to more problems. Like the atomic bomb it ends war with Japan but adds the potential to destroy the planet. And I don’t think the scientist are at fault because they have a drive to create. But no matter how smart they claim to be they never consider how others will use the invention. They are foolish. I’m not saying this to insult them. They are smart but so stupid in other ways. I saw the interview with Dr. Fauci and he predicts Covid 4 years ago. Doesn’t this sound an alarm?

 

I think a utopian world will happen when we learn to control science. And by control I don’t mean oppressing it I mean an agreement not to misuse it. That would happen by the attitudes and belief of man. But how do you propose to do that without religion? I mean you could use psychology or sociology. But would these social sciences then be considered religion. It is not the laws of religion most scientist abject to but the spiritual parts. “Do not murder,” makes sense to the scientist.

 

Thoughts

Religious cuts have contributed almost nothing beneficial to humanity over the span of about 3000 years. Worshiping an imagined God just serves to generate more superstition, myth, fallacy, and plain nonsense. Science has provided most of what we depend on daily, for healthy living, and convenience, not to mention wealth. Without scientific discoveries we would be dead within 3-4 weeks (think chlorine to disinfect water, the Haber  Process for the generation of fertilizer , etc). 

Your idea that "a utopian world will happen when we learn to control science" is also , in my opinion and based on what I have read/learned and concluded, is also misplaced. There can not be a utopian world with the concept and emotion of possession. Greed/possession are the reason we will never have a utopian world. Has little to do with science. This goes way back to the times when man had no idea of where babies come from. 

[swansont]

18 hours ago, Trurl said:

I think a utopian world will happen when we learn to control science. And by control I don’t mean oppressing it I mean an agreement not to misuse it. That would happen by the attitudes and belief of man. But how do you propose to do that without religion? I mean you could use psychology or sociology. But would these social sciences then be considered religion. It is not the laws of religion most scientist abject to but the spiritual parts. “Do not murder,” makes sense to the scientist.

 

Thoughts

I think you should respond to the objections and requests for clarification raised earlier in the thread.

[Trurl]

Well I cannot describe a Utopian society. What I am trying to describe the best possible Earth. Mainly peaceful, less crime, freedom of thought, and no suffering ring. Obviously I have no idea how it works. But can you achieve it without religion? Can science alone do it? And how would you use science to accomplish this?

 

I feel the scientist disregards religion because of what they have experienced growing up. Leave out the miracles such as walking on water. Scientists are more concerned with the way religious people behave. The think they are simple following a bunch of rules and it isn’t true. They think we are stupid and make their own rules But nonbelievers don’t realize they follow the rules because we chose to. It isn’t just about following rules it is a way of life.

 

So a hammer doesn’t smash the hand holding it does? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people? I know just about any science achievement can be misused. But you just proved my point that properly used science is beautiful. But it cannot improve the world by itself.

 

 

 

Religious cuts have contributed almost nothing beneficial to humanity over the span of about 3000 years. Worshiping an imagined God just serves to generate more superstition, myth, fallacy, and plain nonsense. Science has provided most of what we depend on daily, for healthy living, and convenience, not to mention wealth. Without scientific discoveries we would be dead within 3-4 weeks (think chlorine to disinfect water, the Haber  Process for the generation of fertilizer , etc).”

 

 

What history are you reading? Religion is mainly responsible for the world now. The Renaissance, The education system. The Constitution. WWII.

 

And remember a lot of science is the result of war. And we fund science for profit. Prescriptions, medical. Didn’t you see the movie where Tony Stark saw all the profit he made on weapons being used for war?

[iNow]

You’re not looking for utopia. You’re looking for justification for your random religious beliefs. 

Religions have been around for thousands of years. If they were the path to utopia, one would expect us to be much closer to it by now. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Trurl said:

I feel the scientist disregards religion because of what they have experienced growing up. Leave out the miracles such as walking on water. Scientists are more concerned with the way religious people behave. The think they are simple following a bunch of rules and it isn’t true. They think we are stupid and make their own rules But nonbelievers don’t realize they follow the rules because we chose to. It isn’t just about following rules it is a way of life.

So you think scholars who study religion are stupid? That the approach is to bring preconception and bias to their area of study?

Or are you talking about scientists caring how the religious behave because it affects them? Any behavior that tries to force a belief system on others is probably not leading to utopia.

 

 

Quote

And remember a lot of science is the result of war. And we fund science for profit. Prescriptions, medical. Didn’t you see the movie where Tony Stark saw all the profit he made on weapons being used for war?

That’s because we choose to fund science that way. We don’t have to. That’s because of political will, not science.

[Prometheus]

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well I cannot describe a Utopian society. What I am trying to describe the best possible Earth. Mainly peaceful, less crime, freedom of thought, and no suffering ring. Obviously I have no idea how it works. But can you achieve it without religion? Can science alone do it? And how would you use science to accomplish this?

It may be possible that science, through technology, can provide a post-scarcity society, where all our physical needs are sated. Arguably some people already occupy that bubble. Whether that counts as a utopia or would be sufficient to create the conditions of a utopia is another question. I'm reminded of the rat utopia experiments in which rats were provided every physical need and didn't do so well. I suspect humans would fare little better.

Or as William Blake put it:

Man was made for joy and woe
Then when this we rightly know
Through the world we safely go.
Joy and woe are woven fine
A clothing for the soul to bind.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well I cannot describe a Utopian society. What I am trying to describe the best possible Earth. Mainly peaceful, less crime, freedom of thought, and no suffering ring. Obviously I have no idea how it works. But can you achieve it without religion? Can science alone do it? And how would you use science to accomplish this?

 

24 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I suspect humans would fare little better.

 

[noquacks]

19 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well I cannot describe a Utopian society. What I am trying to describe the best possible Earth. Mainly peaceful, less crime, freedom of thought, and no suffering ring. Obviously I have no idea how it works. But can you achieve it without religion? Can science alone do it? And how would you use science to accomplish this?

 

I feel the scientist disregards religion because of what they have experienced growing up. Leave out the miracles such as walking on water. Scientists are more concerned with the way religious people behave. The think they are simple following a bunch of rules and it isn’t true. They think we are stupid and make their own rules But nonbelievers don’t realize they follow the rules because we chose to. It isn’t just about following rules it is a way of life.

 

So a hammer doesn’t smash the hand holding it does? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people? I know just about any science achievement can be misused. But you just proved my point that properly used science is beautiful. But it cannot improve the world by itself.

 

 

 

Religious cuts have contributed almost nothing beneficial to humanity over the span of about 3000 years. Worshiping an imagined God just serves to generate more superstition, myth, fallacy, and plain nonsense. Science has provided most of what we depend on daily, for healthy living, and convenience, not to mention wealth. Without scientific discoveries we would be dead within 3-4 weeks (think chlorine to disinfect water, the Haber  Process for the generation of fertilizer , etc).”

 

 

What history are you reading? Religion is mainly responsible for the world now. The Renaissance, The education system. The Constitution. WWII.

 

And remember a lot of science is the result of war. And we fund science for profit. Prescriptions, medical. Didn’t you see the movie where Tony Stark saw all the profit he made on weapons being used for war?

Interesting you ask- I actually have read one book too many, Trul. I am an old scientist, with multi disciplinary background. Thats all I can say so far on the internet. 

I should have qualified my question as "what positive, beneficial contribution has Religion made in 3000 years". As  of yet, you have not provided any answer. You did however mention education. You mean Sunday School? Where "teachers" teach how Adam and Eve were the 1st man/woman on Earth? And how Moses met God on Mt Sinai via a burning bush? 

Do you actually believe Religion spawned the Renaissance? Then how did we manage to produce a Galileo whos discoveries about astronomy challenged and threatened the Catholic Church DURING that Renaissance? No one can prove exactly how/what spurred on the Renaissance.  

Our Constitution was written mainly by Deists (Jefferson, Washington, Monroe, etc) , not exactly a religious cult (you can google it). Either way, IMO, the Constitution is not perfect, and written by at least some hypocrites, albeit, masterful writers (thing all men are created equal- except leave my slaves out of it so I alone can benefit from them). 

Again, I offer two of the most stark examples of the contribution of science without which, in a few short weeks you would be dead- the disinfection of water throughout the modern world and the Haber Process. There are many more examples. Religious Cult "leaders" only have offered the idea of prayer, penitence,  the misguided hope of eternal salvation, and false hope. And let's not forget the vile wicked sexually disfunctional priests who pervert sexual desire/urge itself by appearing to practice abstinence as some sort of reverence to be admired.