On 11/12/2013 4:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2013, at 11:54, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
"So what would you suggest as a replacement? The scientific method is, to paraphrase
Winston Churchill on democracy, the worst system we have apart from all the others
we've tried."
Following your analogy. when the the media, and the politicians of majority parties
form a coalition to defend their own interests, then you can not have access to the
information. You are governed by a collection of liars and simulators. There is no
democracy.
When the science and their media is dominated by a single coalition united in the
mutual interest to increase their budget and they have the communication means of
internet to coordinate in this effort, then there is no science.
I propose the separation of science and state.
Yes. And that is what is done normally in a democracy. When science is not separated
from politics, you get pseudo-science at the top. In fact you get a religious state.
Politicians can consult experts, but have to be careful not taking them too much seriously.
Now, about climate, my opinion, since always, is that we have accessed to only one
planet, at least for some time, and so we must avoid any irreversible actions *when*
possible.
Henry Ford in the early 1900 explained already that by using hemp in place of steel and
oil to make car,
Only the body panels were of a plastic made from plants, the chassis and engine were steel
and iron:
"The frame, made of tubular steel, had 14 plastic panels attached to it. The car weighed
2000 lbs., 1000 lbs. lighter than a steel car. The exact ingredients of the plastic panels
are unknown because no record of the formula exists today. One article claims that they
were made from a chemical formula that, among many other ingredients, included soybeans,
wheat, hemp, flax and ramie; while the man who was instrumental in creating the car,
Lowell E. Overly, claims it was "...soybean fiber in a phenolic resin with formaldehyde
used in the impregnation" (Davis, 51)."
we would allow a sustainable economy, while by using oil, we create a larger and larger
imbalance. Given the Hemp alternative, we should not have even begun to use oil, or in a
more reasonable proportion, and should have continue with Hemp, as we have done the
preceding centuries. Of course the oil barons thought differently, and invented the myth
that Hemp (cannabis) is a dangerous plant. A myth which has been debunked since the start.
Brent advocates democracy, and I go with him on this. But if their is a climate change,
it might be due to the failure of democracy to prevent big corporatist lies.
Or the propensity of humans to live well today no matter what problems that may entail a
generation or two in the future. That's why the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to
convince anyone that global warming isn't happening, they just have to create some doubt.
And that's easy against scientists because scientists always doubt their own theories. As
Albert says, knowledge doesn't produce action. To get large scale cooperative action is a
political process. It requires values, passions...like concern for ones grandchildren.
If you say science must be separate from politics - how do propose that scientific
knowledge about a problem, motivate action?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
