Yep. And I could add more. I've often told my sons about going to school without air conditioning, or not having it as I grew up. Heck, my parents wouldn't use air-conditioning even if the house we moved into had it, unless the temps got up to bright side of Mercury level heat. All in all, with few exceptions, we had no more in terms of electronics and pollution than my parents did in the 30s. We had TV, and they didn't. We had cassette players and they had only record players. They had electric stoves and refrigerators and washers and driers as we did. I don't think we had a dish washer until I was out of college. We did have a microwave. That's about it.
Now, of course, most of what we have is plugged into something. We have phones - needing electricity and hence power, and computers or laptops or tablets - needing electricity and hence power; we have televisions as always, and multiple electronic devices. I know of no modern buildings that don't have air conditioning and that don't use it. I see lighting for decorations, massive lighting displays on a variety of holidays, not to mention the sheer size and volume of electronic everything today. Of course this doesn't include video games and computer games and other electronic equipment that chew up far more carbon than our old ball bats and footballs from back in the day (it's worth noting I saw a story on the decline of interest among up and coming generations in things like sports).
I've said a thousand times that I absolutely believe it when scientists say STEM has caused climate change. Every day I become more and more convinced that the way in which we approached the scientific revolution and subsequent industrial and technological revolutions reminds me of a couple kids finding the keys to their parents' liquor cabinet while the parents are away.
Sure, at first, it looked all peaches and cream. Everything could be solved by science and math, and industry and technology will fix all the problems. Give it all a blank check and we'll fix the world. Though even at the beginning, there were those who expressed concern about either the physical changes, or at least the social ones.
But now, after the last century, after a growing list of problems attributed to various forms of the STEM family, at seeing the limits of science, and how often the scientists and experts and researchers of the past ended up being wrong, you'd think we'd be rethinking the whole thing.
Instead, it's as if those kids with the keys to the liquor cabinet woke up with a horrible hangover from drinking too much whisky, admitted it was the whisky, and are now hellbent on drinking yet more whiskey to make them feel better.
As it is, if we are really serious about his being the crisis of all history and the world will be destroyed by 2100, then we would be making serious, radical and all-bets-are-off changes - including changes that impact ourselves. Instead, we are seeing people who want others to do the suffering so they can go on living a life that has brought us - per the science - to the very crisis they're panicking about.
Far be it from me to argue against costs. I like to joke that my political affiliation is "costitarian" after all.
ReplyDeleteBut to act as defense for STEM for one moment...
Every day I become more and more convinced that the way in which we approached the scientific revolution and subsequent industrial and technological revolutions reminds me of a couple kids finding the keys to their parents' liquor cabinet while the parents are away.
Look at your boys. Ask yourself, which 2 of them would you be willing to let die?
Because what a lot of people have forgotten is that is the world we had before the STEM revolution. Calvin Coolidge, president of the united states during the roaring twenties, do you know what he lost his son over? A blister on his foot he got from playing tennis. That was our world, where every family, regardless of class, had lost children.
Imagine that world for a minute - imagine it's your boys in that world - and I think you'll realize why everyone was so "rah rah STEM" from that time. And what I think a lot of activists fail to realize is that there are still places on this globe stuck in that world who are wanting to climb out of it. Telling them "no can do" isn't just denying them riches, but asking them to let their children die.
Would you?
(I'll admit, this is probably on my mind because our pastor has 2 newborns in the ICU right now after being born premature, and they're probably only living because of our STEM efforts.)
I have no beef with STEM/science per se. Just like I have no beef with McDonalds. I’m just convinced that neither should constitute the whole of the human diet With STEM, I just watched over the last couple months four stories talking about the rise in various ailments: autism, dementia, cancer (now the biggest cause of death in the industrial world) and food allergies (rising in pure chance alongside the emergence of the flu vaccine). I have a hard time believing this is all cosmic coincidence. It could be a sort of bell curve in STEM’s effectiveness. At first, when we were just breaking new ground and curing ancient ailments and inventing awesome things like cars and air conditioning, it was up, up, up. But somewhere, we peaked. And now we’re doing it in a way that is no longer as lopsided toward the good, but for some reason or another (perhaps the natural world wasn’t meant to be injected with so much that is artificial and manufactured in a lab), the ill effects and side effects are beginning to take their toll. It could be someday that we will need STEM if for no other reason than to counteract the ill effects that have arisen from our modern approach to STEM.
DeleteAs I’ve said, my Mom and my oldest son both developed debilitating problems almost immediately after receiving vaccinations. In both cases we’ve been told it’s cosmic coincidence since those vaccines don’t cause problems like that. Call me a cynic, but I’m having a hard time believing that we’re just that unlucky as to be hit with these things – twice – right after receiving vaccinations. Not an anti-vaccine person or anything. Just having a hard time believing the explanation of ‘it couldn’t be that – but we can’t otherwise explain it other than sucks to be you.’
On a similar note, I heard as I was getting ready this morning that Al Roker was back. Apparently he had fallen and hurt or broken his hip. As he was back, they said something interesting. They said that such injuries as broken hips are now more common at younger and younger ages than in generations past. Just like dementia is becoming more common the younger and younger we are. The people on NBC in their little talk chalked it up to people being more active today. I have a feeling that’s not why more are breaking their hips. I also don’t think it’s just strange coincidence that all of these ailments are on the rise. Heck, again, if science is to be believed, then STEM has caused Global Warming.
I think in the future humans are going to have to put STEM in some form of restrained usage. I think already we’re seeing the beginning of the ill effects of always and only relying on material solutions as if there can never be anything but material problems.