Prince Charles Accused of Science Warnings

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by apendrapew, Jul 12, 2004.

  1. apendrapew Oral defecator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    577
    This is pretty funny and well written

    link
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Thor "Pfft, Rebel scum!" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,326
    Why do people believe Charles anyway, he must be the biggest scientific result of inbreeding anywhere?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Theres little science in royal families breeding. SOme politics though, and I think some people still think of politics as "political science". But theyre morons.
    (show me a peer reviewed repeatable experiment in politics.)

    That said, all he effectively did was quote some scientist who said:
    "He quoted retired Cambridge University engineering professor John Carroll, who said it “would be surprising if nanotechnology did not offer similar upsets” as thalidomide, the morning-sickness drug which led to thousands of babies suffering birth defects."

    If thats the only problem we have from nanotechnology, I think we'll have gotten off lightly. One need only consider the recognised many thousands who die from prescription drugs, or car accidents, etc.
    I mean, its a bit thick for Winston to ramble on about responsible dialogue, when nanotech is kept under lock and key because its potentially moneymaking, and no health effects studies are done, and finally, that its only at the same stage as, say, antibiotics were before WW2. (roughly speaking.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Logically Unsound wwaassuupp and so on Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,817
    i wish people wouldnt write sci fi about upcoming developments. it keeps nagging me that if people didnt write books like brave new world and that one about 'grey goo' things like GM and nanotechnology would launch a lot easier.
    i know that people in general are more intelligent than to believe this stuff, but every article i read useually starts with something like this:
    "fears of grey goo are rampant."
    or something else. noone can get through a conversation about it without it being mentioned!?! aragra its so dam annoying, and it just results in common people halting scientific development with people focusing so much on these ridiculous developments.

    sorry if i talked crap, or sounded like an eliteist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Sci Fi has been the source of many a good idea and many a bad one. Speculation is wise. The elite deciding all things is putting policy making in the hands of people who are removed from the value of the commons, often removed from the value of life. Things become more important than life. One could consider medicine mistakes as well as advances to be the closest analogy we can look at as to the possible ramifications of nanotechnology. Great powers require great responsibility and not just to our social standing or the strength of our pocket books. Good show Prince Charles.

    Look into the alternative forms of dealing with cancer. Some are quakery but some are valid as is shown in the literature. Want a good read see if you can find the book " Living Proof" by Michael Gearin-Tosh. Here's a review, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2002_June/ai_86387609
     
  9. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    As far as I know, fears of grey goo aren't rampant, because most people are more worried about paying their mortgage or getting gassed by saddam hussein.
    What is left is a at times, dangerously polarised debate where the people who like the new thing, stand to make money from it etc, say its wonderful, and others who can see there might be problems, and are worried about how much we dont know about it, say, oh, but we dont know enough. (or worse.)

    I stongly think no seriously new technology should be launched very easily, otherwise you do end up with stuff like Thalidomide. Or, in the case of lead in petrol, a noticeable shifting of intelligence etc bell curves, towards the lower end of the scale.
    (an aside, perhaps thats why people are doing better at IQ tests, theres less lead in children now and they are therefore doing better.)
     

Share This Page