At what point will we not need to advance scientifically? Is there an endgame?

Also, we're talking about humanity as if it's First World only.

Most of the world does not have the very basic necessities of life: clean water, sufficient food, roofs over their head, medicine, education.

We have a long way to go before the world can chill.

That alone is an excellent reason for pursuing knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most people I know have the capacity to be happy, but often come up with financial, relationship, and social problems, usually resulting in breaks in their happiness and contentment. Most people I know, rely on science and technology. I think if scientific advancement and technology suddenly stopped, and we were left with the what we have. We would be non the wiser, and our happiness, or well being would not be infringed at all. Do you agree?

Space tourism?
Hmm! Great, but totally unnecessary.
That resource could go a long way in making the world, literally a better place.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with the last sentiment, absolutely. I disagree with the first one: space tourism not only isn't great, it's making earth orbit more and more dangerous by adding to the shell of scrap-metal. To entertain a rich doofus for an hour is not - to me, at least - a laudable application of scientific acumen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've said all I wanted to say. No confrontation. Only a comparison and a counter question why science should become useless while religion remains an acceptable constant human endeavor.
.

 

Most people you know have clean water, food, medicine and education, so it's hardly a fair example.

Most of the rest of world does not. That's an excellent reason for innovation.

(And comes back to capitalism. If we can provide these people with a better lifestyle, they will start buying stuff. Raising up struggling countries is a capitalistic strategy.)

Hang on. What does "necessary" have to do with anything? That is a completely different topic.

The question was: why do we pursue knowledge.
The (possible) answer is: to make money.
The example is : space tourism.

 

Not for long. We'd run out of oil and foul our environment, making everyone more miserable.

But if, instead, we kept progressing, we could find replacements for oil and do things like cure cancer, then we would be wiser and happier.

Agreed. That money would be much better spent on space power satellites, for example, to bring cheap, clean power to India, Africa, China etc. Fortunately they share some of the same technology (launch technology) so developments for one will help with the other.

 

We're there now. Dogs are nothin': Dolphins can be mated with fungi, these days.

You're questioning the need to be human? We should be ants?

Meanwhile: Surviving the next asteroid impact, megavolcano, or serious plague, is going to be a basic fundamental need.

 

There will always be room for improvement in science.

There will always be open questions that science cannot answer.

Science will never know everything there is to know because the more knowledge science discovers the more we realize what we don't know.

 

Don't forget ITER nuclear fusion. I was sort of hoping for a scientific hat trick of Higgs particle, Gravitational waves and commercial Nuclear fusion power. If not now, then...
https://www.iter.org/
ITER FAQ https://www.iter.org/faq#collapsible_5

 

Here's an interesting question.

Given that science expects weather events to become more catastrophic, what odds do you think the average scientist gives for the advancement of science over say the next 50 or 100 years?
What about how much science can be retained, particularly the applied sciences?
Or do you think it won't be any problem, universities will stay open, electrical grids will all work, etc. Corporations will fund research and development?

 

What is the connection here?
Do you literally mean strong winds might blow the laboratories down?

 

In the sense that you are using it, is there a "point" to anything? What is the point to any movement? Why not just lay in your bed all day? There is no point to man even being here. Things just are and we assign (or not) meaning to them but the things themselves don't possess meaning. There is no "meaning" in a rock.

Or if you don't mean it quite that metaphyically, why pick "scientific advancement" as your topic of concern? Is there a point at which we should stop learning? Is that the point at which we learn to walk or when we learn to speak or should we finish elementary school?

We have muscles that need to be exercised. We have a brain that needs to be fed nutrients and that also needs to be "exercised". That's learning.

We don't "have" to do it. Our muscles can atropy, our brains can go to waste as well. We could revert back to a cave man like existence. We could go a step further and outlaw education.

I don't think chilling and enjoying is really what would happen if we should outlaw education. I guess, in one sense, you could describe a vegetative state as chilling and enjoying but I don't think most people would describe it that way.

Many/most people enjoy learning, advancing in some way whether is just reading a book, learning to ski or whatever. Animals need this as well. Dogs need to chase balls. Cats chase string as it stimulates their natural predatory behavior and seems to keep them mentally healthy.

If you aren't talking about going back to the stone ages but simply accepting all we know up to the year 2019 but going no further, that's rather arbitrary isn't it?

Oftentimes, when people want to reduce technology, slow down the pace of knowledge, it is for some alternative reasons that aren't actually being addressed. That might be fear based, it might be interfering with their pre-existing belief system, it might be an inability to learn or a fear that learning is too hard. It can be any one of those reason or for other reasons.

I see that after the first post "happiness" was brought into this question as well. Happiness isn't a permanent state but I would say that it's good (for mental well-being) to shoot for that state as often as possible. I think fulfillment would be more what you would want to go for. So yes, there could be happiness and a sense of well-being in the absence of scientific advancement or any kind of advancement.

One could just sit and stare at one's navel and meditate all day and as long as you have food you might be happy and fulfilled and content. You could do that without scientific advancement. You could do that without most anything but you've chosen to pick scientific advancement as the standard.

 

No, I mean strong winds might blow a lot of powerlines down, floods might mean millions of people evacuating cities which are flood-prone or will be, rescue and disaster relief efforts won't be able to function.

For example. Who's going to care about some laboratory being underwater?

 

I think most people are probably happier living today than at some time in the past. What's the saying? "The good old days were usually not so good".

More people live longer due to improvements in child birth in large part. Diseases or health issues that are minor now often resulted in death in the past.

People, in general, now have more leisure time (which seems to be one of your goals), knowledge is now more widely spread across classes/economic groups thereby benefiting more people. More people are more able to travel and interact with other cultures.

People/culture tends to be more enlightened/civil. We no longer commonly have slaves, offer people as a sacrifice and other barbaric practices. Life tends to be progressive. The longer a civilization exists the more enlightened it becomes.

 

Holy cow.

Hold the science, send more missionaries to make people happier in their daily lives.
Jan sees the world as being like his local surroundings and conditions (actually, jan wants to steer away from the real world).The real world to Jan is only the people he knows. My bold

Will Jan be telling us the world's poor have made poor life choices?

 

Fair enough.
So I take it you're not one who plans ahead, you simply live moment to moment.
If you have children, I imagine there are no rules, only gentle guidance toward a purposeless existence.
Happiness is what you are currently experiencing.
I don't think you are, or want to be, like that.

I'm not saying we should stop learning, outlaw education, or anything like that.
I'm just curious at to the point of scientific advancement, and whether or not there is an ultimate goal.

So why scientific advancement (read DaveC's quote in OP)?
Why not learn how to live together?
We have enough scientific data, expertise, technology, and resources to give it a serious try.

Try to bare in mind, I'm not knocking scientific advancement.

That wouldn't be the alternative, as we are currently scientifically advanced.
We could utilise our current advancement for the betterment of mankind.
For example we could clean up the slums all over the world, clean up the rivers, provide toilets.
We could see to it that every human has food and shelter.
I'm aware of how idealistic I'm sounding, but it is an ideal that could be attained.
At least this way there would be a point to it all.

I guess ''chilling'' wasn't a good word to use. Let's go with ''contentment''.

I'm asking what is the point of unending scientific advancement?
Why we need to create sophisticated AI?
I'm not saying we shouldn't create it, I'm just asking what is the goal? Or is there a goal?

Imagine if for some reason there was no more scientific advancements, and we were left with what we have now.
Would that be a detriment to current world situation?

jan.

 

Don't you think that is a problem that can be fixed with our current level of knowledge and expertise.
I mean, we are sending probes to Mars.
If scientists can't find a solution to that problem. why are we sending probes?
Why not work on that? Who knows, we may find potentially great scientists among the societies we help, who can contribute greatly to science.
Isn't it a better evolutionary prospect?

So we need those countries to remain poor, to keep the balance?
It would appear that scientific advancement is not about helping mankind, given that scenario.

I'm rolling with the idea that scientific advancement (SA), is for the betterment of mankind.
If that were the case, one could assume those resources could be better utilised.

The question is why do we pursue SA ad Techology, and what is the goal.

jan.

 

The goal is the journey, not the destination.

 

That makes no sense.

Jan.

 

Then consider whether it is your goal to live, or to die.