bunch of economists are on a plane that starts to plummet. But there aren't enough parachutes. But the economists remain sanguine. No problem! Because of the sudden increase in demand for parachutes, the market will magically solve the dilemma, supplying everyone with a parachute before the plane hits the ground. --------------------------- Same with "new" energy sources. It may be late to think about alternative sources when oil will become scarce and expensive.
Good analogy. It seems the whole of society can't grasp the impermanence of fossil fuel supplies. That's why I said in another thread that the price of oil is too low.
I guess that those who have parachutes will fiercely defend them until they make their escape; the rest will have to crash & burn. At least some of the plane's original passenger compliment will survive. Just as some parts of civilization will be able to carry on when we run out of fossil fuels - however messy the transition is.
Did you know that in the Sudan the price of gas is 7.00 US per gallon? Or how about England where it is over 5.00 per gallon US? Is that to low? How high should it go, I mean then only rich people will be able to afford autos.
What if the means of making new parachutes is on the airplane, and the time before crash is less than the time to make parachutes? What will be the effect of the increased demand on parachutes then?
So how long do we have before we run out of oil? I've read conflicting reports. What is the best option we have for alternatives? Will our hand be forced to nuclear? What is this hydrogen hype? How does that work? I think the plane has started its decent, and some countries are desperately grabbing the few parachutes left.
Are you saying free markets can go down as well as up? Or, if your harking back to the original point about resources on the planet, I am not too sure yet if it does or not. But a history of short sightedness as well as sometimes long term vision isnt always reassuring.
invariably the world will get in a major war, and develop a new technology that sweeps the globe, and sets science on another run for about a decade or so. then we'll need a new source of invigoration. :m:
The last serious SCIENTIFIC breakthrough humans enjoyed was in 1920th (no war then). Everything else what we see/use is just a product of mainly technology and engineering sprinkled with science . War does not like science. War likes/needs only technology having immediate impact. Today, fundamental sciences are in quite a "qualitative" decline worldwide. Tweaking things here and there does not count for much.
You mean putting some more figures after the decimal point? I almost agree with you, and thats bugging me. Certainly at the moment, some of the physics hypotheses are not open to scientific investigation due to lack of ability to do the experiments. And chemistry is in the process of elaboration, there is very little in the way of actual breakthroughs left to do in the are of chemistry, at least not anything as fundamental as working out what benzene is.
Then why did both sides during World War II invest heavily in research efforts (most significantly, the Manhatten Project) which lasted years and didn't yield usable technologies until nearly the end of the war? As for a qualitative decline in science today: many people would disagree. OK, some countries suffer a brain drain due to a shortage of jobs for science graduates (the UK is particularly bad). But Worldwide, science is progressing as well as ever - better than 50 years ago, certainly, simply because more peole have access to education and resources for research, particularly in the developing world. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Splitting nuclei was achieved long time before WWII (early 1930th). The idea was already there before the war. Manhatten project=huge uranium enrichment project (classic R&D+lots of Chem engineering done by Dupont's employees (not exactly fundamental scientists)). It was a gigantic scale up project. Manhatten project did not last that long (early 1942-mid 1945, only 3 years). Manhatten project was in no way a scientific breakthrough by itself. It's not like the idea of splitting atom&making a bomb out of that effect was born during the course of Manhatten project. It's not like there were no strict deadlines for the project (in other words, getting results in the reasonable timeframe was #1 priority). Had scientists told "we need 15 years to build an A bomb", I doubt they would have been given much attention. As for Germany, things were quite different. In 1942 Hitler decided to cut all arm R&D projects (including work on A bomb) which did not promise viable results in 1! year. I have little respect for the amount of bull shit published each year in scientific journals (if you associate that with progress). Cut that BS by 70%, progress will not suffer at all. If guys (poor souls who were caught) managed to publish 40 something of absolutely bogus (not tweaked, embelished but totally bogus!) papers in Science and Nature, just imagine what bull shit/cheating feast is going on in scientific community. I do not associate the progress with the number of people working in science&number of publications. I do agree that only suicidal zombie/fools would chose a science career these days. Unfortunately, modern science funding system is encouraging people to produce as much BS as possible. It's just damn wasteful. Also, exponential growth of science is about to be over (shortage of jobs and funding are sure signs of that). I really cannot see modern science operating without gigantic army of low paid slaves with little future (careerwise). see The big crunch
As for your article of "visionary", it's classical BS to hype things up (and cheat a buck later). Hype and modern science are basically synonimous.
The future of science? Well, its more complex than what peopel have said so far, yet, as someone whos been through uni and now has had some scientifically related jobs, science isnt quite the most exciting place to be right now. Firstly, dixonmassey, what is published in scientific journals isnt necessarily BS, just dull. Take my Msc project for example, it involved trying to replicate the results of a groupd of researchers who were fluoridating PZT. (A piezoelectric ceramic) It didnt work. But these people had for several years been doing all sorts of manufactureing and intricate testing of stuff, and publishing the results, yet all it relaly consisted of was putting more places after the decimal point. That is what i think a lot of science is doing right now. Although biotech is taking leaps forwards, I dont know much about it, but essentially, what helped drive science through the past 400 years was the opening up of new vistas. And we have run out of them now. In one sense you are correct about the army of low paid slaves, since they will be needed to operate all the repetitive experiments. And it also explains why fewer people are doing scientific work.
Well, I have some experience in paper publishing bussiness (including "biotech"). If paper is about nothing (like we put this and that together and got some worthless stuff on the output) it's essentially a BS. It adds close to nothing to science and progress. You say the next person will not put "this and that together" but it will explore some other possibilities instead; thus, paper was not a complete bs. I'll say it's wishfull thinking. Usually, authors are playing with 1-3 parameters (out of dozens) + Lots of details are ommited. Papers like "Effect of addition of 0.5% of something on something" are essentially worthless. It's near impossible to reproduce that BS (because of the reasons stated above). Plus, people are dumbly cheating/"embellishing" in their papers. When I am doing literature search the most frequent thought coming to my mind is "Who gives a fuck about whatever a paper is about?". The largest crook from science I worked with was fleecing biotech funding (millions $). Hype (lots of it) + good salemanship + scientific blindness (=lack of the desire to critically examine research directions which produce $funding$) +cheating here and there=success. In some cases it's not even classical cheating. Sometimes, scientists develop "faith" into something and turn off critical thinking whatsoever. they want to believe. If such a scientist is a boss simultaneously, any critical comment may seriously screw underling's career. Thus, group lead by such a scientist is divided in two halves: silent drones doing work they deeply believe is BS, ass kissing bastards= science is dead.
Roughly speaking, that correlates what the "big crunch" article by the boke at caltech says, and I broadly agree.
If the plane is the worlds human population, and the parachutes were oil, their would be only one parachute and it will be shredded in the struggle. The owner of said parachute would be among the first to go, as soon as the passengers realize the plane is crashing.
That Big Crunch article is gloomy reading. Overall, Dr. Goodstein is not saying that there will be nothing left to discover - just that people will lose the opportunities to continue discovery, because what remains unknown will be too exotic and too obscure to be worth researching. The fact is, though, that modern civilisation cannot sustain itself indefinitely without a major technological overhaul, which is only just beginning even in the developed world. Most obviously, we must end our dependence on fossil fuels and other unsustainable energy sources; secondly, new mineral resources must be found after those of our own planet are used up - unless recycling can be made universal and 100% efficient. Not to mention that we, as a species, still have 2 major natural enemies: viruses and bacteria, which evolve far faster than us. Indeed, modern medicine is propelling and directing their evolution with new selection pressures; it is inevitable, however long delayed, that some pathogen will eventually emerge capable of exterminating humans altogether, unless we are wiped out by some other disaster (natural or artificial) first. Medical research must always continue, or we will fall behind in the evolutionary arms race. We NEED science - and not just to devise new luxuries, or satisfy curiosity about distant parts of the Universe. Obviously, scientific professions cannot continue to grow indefinitely, and the number of science graduates might be beneficially reduced to match the number of relevant jobs. But if science has no future, neither does humanity.
