Major cultural change is never completely monolithic or one-sided. It's not as if everyone in Europe woke up after the sack of Rome in 410 AD and said, "Damn! the Dark Ages have started ... what a bummer the next 1000 years will be!"
Yes, most people still enjoy the fruits of science and, when it's not challenging to the values they already hold, the next gadget that comes along. But supporting a real scientific world view on a fundamental level -- with everything that implies about how one has to embrace the notion of actual truth in the real world -- is another matter. How else could we be facing the disastrous evidence that getting off the hydrocarbon tit is a pressing need, but our "leaders" here in the US don't say anything about the only viable alternative, nuclear energy? Why, because that's "dangerous science;" everyone KNOWS that!
Have to disagree. In the first place, the statement that nuclear energy is "dangerous science" isn't that science is dangerous, rather that that specific avenue of study is. AND, in the second place, it's not everyone that thinks that - it's the liberals, the bane of freedom and ultimately of society.
And what is "actual truth"? Is that a vote for atheism? Atheists are like teenagers, they think they know everything, but eventually some of them grow up and realize they really don't know much at all (and become agnostics). It was very interesting to see how much of Through The Wormhole was about scientists that, THROUGH their study, have come to believe in some sort of higher level of being (that doesn't mean yaweh, just 'something').
Everyone knows that science is needed for tech gadgets. And those tech gadgets are also needed for the gov't to treat us all like incompetent children who are criminals just waiting to happen, and watch our every move 24/7, as well as handle all aspects of life such as money and food handouts. Given the alarming popularity of socialism these days, it's a given that science must also be invoked and used. (Equilibrium is not far off, you just watch - that IS the next logical step, to make people.... "better" (as Mal once phrased it))
Also, hydrocarbons are NOT a problem. Never have been, never will be. Are you talking about the liberal BS about "global warming"? Nevermind that we have no impact on, and no control over (nor anything to worry about from) such a thing - the real answer is NOT alternative fuels.... it's less people. Wait until fresh water becomes the item in high demand and low supply. When it rockets the cost of food through the roof (in addition to raw demand for food itself, AND for the land used to grow it on). It's not that far out. A few years, really.
---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------
@Usquanigo
That's not exactly science, that's popular gadgetry and entertainment. You don't see people excited about the latest breakthroughs of nuclear physics. Rather, you see the opposite. What you get is sensational statements about how the Large Hadron Collider is going to make a black hole and kill us all.
Eye-phones and video games are innocuous. Nuclear and high-energy physics is both too complicated and 'boring' for people to want to understand, and too dangerous in the media's eyes. In essence, there's a big difference between popular science and real science.
It is a very small and exclusive group, the people who enjoy learning and aren't afraid to do so.
I would like to say that that group rules the world, but sadly, the status quo continues to hold 'true' in the eyes of the masses.
But entertainment is the point. If it was "dangerous", it would be censored, and also not produced. How many scientists and engineers out there were inspired by Star Trek and Star Wars and Heinlein and Asimov? It's the captivation of imagination that leads those with the capacity down that path. Without celebrating science in some way, that just doesn't happen. Whether it's making a public celebrity out of an eminent scientist (Einstein in the 50s), or using TV and entertainment, it is inextricably linked, and shows a level of hunger for it in the public. Especially today where if it doesn't turn a profit, it doesn't get made.
And a video game isn't exactly on the same level as Through The Wormhole, or even the MythBusters for that matter.
There are a lot of downsides to it, but it's not science, it's the use of it. The means of tracking people is a horror of technology. Databasing DNA or people's movements and habits is the same. Those are things that should NEVER happen. But used for curing disease, or intentionally adapting people to a changing environment, that's a good thing. Then again..... with a little more natural selection and smaller population, those diseases and other physical defects could go away on their own, but that takes a level of intestinal fortitude that humans lack these days (an indication of our ultimate decline and eventual demise). Further, nanites could be used to eradicate things like cancer and such without the need for genetic research (to the level that we are taking it at least). (simple program "doesn't belong here (in this body), so destroy it")
All of those things - fear of nuclear power, resistance to space research, over-zealous big brother, un-satable hunger for handouts.... those are all part of a philosophy that is the real problem. Those people band together under a common banner in the US, and they use a horse-like animal for their mascot. Get rid of them, and things get a LOT better for everyone (all around).
