Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Addressing the foundations of humanity's problems?

  1. Sep 11, 2009 #1
    Is science, alone, the key to addressing the foundations of humanity's problems? Assuming we look at the great implications of what it can do for us.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 11, 2009 #2

    drizzle

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Science

    politics..science..humanity's problems!

    what do you exactly mean?
     
  4. Sep 11, 2009 #3
    Re: Science

    At some point, we may come closer to establishing a cure for AIDS.
    Right now we are seeing the emergence of nanotechnology and its implications.
    Provided that right-wing governments are kept out of office, we will see huge advancement on stem-cell research that could potentially involve human cloning or regrowth of limbs, etc.
    And possibly more.

    In the future, conservatism will have to adapt to these things so long as science advances. We most likely will not have as much problems with religious conflict in the future as we do now. So long as everyone is educated, is science enough to stop the blind ideological from emerging in power as we saw in WWII? I don't think so, and so what is?
     
  5. Sep 12, 2009 #4
    Re: Science

    I think one day modern day "liberals" will understand that in order to have unlimited liberty, you have to have conservative government. Big government can only take your liberty, it cant give it. To better state it the modern day republican and democratic parties(leadership not individuals) are both fans of big government(we have no conservative party). Thomas Jefferson, who was probably the most liberal of our founders was also the most conservative, because he understood that we are born with all our rights, and government can only violate(take) them.
    I dont think you will ever see a cure for aids, not because its impossible, but because theres not enough profit in it. All we will ever get is a aids treatment.
    As far as growing limbs and such, that could be very useful, but human cloning, thats all we need more people running around. So much for getting people out of office, when they have a clone standing by.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2009
  6. Sep 12, 2009 #5
    Re: Science

    I think that you will find there are many progressive and science loving conservatives out there. There are plenty who post in this very forum.
     
  7. Sep 12, 2009 #6
    Re: Science

    I agree, and it should be pointed out that the word "liberal" at that time meant what is called "right-wing extremism" today, ie classical liberalism, or libertarianism. That's why I never use the word without quotes or a modifier like "classical".

    And the word "right" wasn't used as a synonym for "entitlement" as it is today. No one is granted any entitlements or rights in the constitution. Rights are presumed to pre-exist and be inalienable (and are protected by the constitution), and entitlements are the result of man-made contracts.

    The word entitlement was used then only to refer to some material good or service due to someone in a legal contract, not as a synonym for "right".

    When people use those two words interchangeably, it makes it difficult for some to recognize the conceptual difference.
     
  8. Sep 12, 2009 #7
    Re: Science

    That was one of the biggest arguments against including the bill of rights in the constitution. The ones opposed said that everyone already new what their rights are and by includung them in the constitution it might lead people to believe that the constitution is where they got their rights from. Looking around today I dont think that line of thought was too far off.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2009
  9. Sep 12, 2009 #8
    Re: Science

    What about embryonic stem cell research?
     
  10. Sep 12, 2009 #9
    Re: Science

    A liberal government would grant same-sex marriage. A conservative won't grant them such rights as it infringes upon their religious values.

    A conservative government is in favour of little gun control or none at all with the hope of letting citizens defend for themselves. A liberal would impose restrictions because we they understand that we do not need that crap in other peoples hands as it is clear it just increases the number of social problems in a society.

    Are you scientifically inclined at all? Nevertheless I would rather keep an open mind. No further comment.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  11. Sep 12, 2009 #10
    Re: Science

     
  12. Sep 12, 2009 #11
    Re: Science

    Another Robert Heinlein fan?
     
  13. Sep 12, 2009 #12
    Re: Science

    There are plenty of scientifically minded conservatives who support embryonic stem cell research. There are also plenty of religious liberals who are opposed to it. You seem to think that religion is a conservative thing. The VAST majority of people in the country are religious. You mentioned gay marriage in another post; the area where I live here in California had the highest voter turnout in a long time and overwhelmingly voted in Barak Obama for president and at the same time passed a proposition to ban gay marriage with an amendment to our state constitution. When my local conservative radio talk show hosts received a call on air from a woman glad to see that gay marriage was banned they called her a disgusting and hateful person.

    The problem is ignorance, it has little to do with political affiliation.
     
  14. Sep 12, 2009 #13
    Re: Science

    Indeed, the problem is ignorance. It's absurd, your Democrats are more right wing than Liberals in Canada.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  15. Sep 12, 2009 #14
    Re: Science

     
  16. Sep 12, 2009 #15
    Re: Science

    Actually vice versa.

    But yes, throughout human history, man has disguised himself and killed in the name of his ideological beliefs. I judge religion based on its political abuses.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2009
  17. Sep 12, 2009 #16
    Re: Science

    To avoid a pedantic discussion, let us consider the ideal cases and the fundamental values associated with each party.

    In that case, the notion of a Liberal Christian is inconsistent to me.

    And that conservatism is indeed on the right-wing of the political spectrum

    With those assumptions,

    the conservative ideology in its true nature has very little means of advancing society forward and resists fundamental change in preservation of the status-quo. This mind set does not treat all of its citizens equally, therefore, is detrimental to the freedoms and growth of a society.

    Before I continue, I await your opinion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2009
  18. Sep 12, 2009 #17
    Re: Science

    Certainly. The more prominant as of late are obviously Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and similar luminaries. Are these the conservatives you had in mind?
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  19. Sep 13, 2009 #18
    Re: Science

    To be honest, I would include Bush and Hitler. But let's forget about that as it is not important.
     
  20. Sep 13, 2009 #19

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: Science

    Too late. You started a pedantic discussion with the OP.
     
  21. Sep 13, 2009 #20
    Re: Science

    Oh well, carry on.
     
  22. Sep 13, 2009 #21

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: Science

    I would call invoking Godwin's law on page 2 as pretty dang pedantic.
     
  23. Sep 13, 2009 #22

    DavidSnider

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: Science

    Have you ever read the new testament? It's so liberal that even the most staunch US liberals wouldn't go as far as it does.

    "Love your enemy"?
    "Take no thought for the morrow"?

    "Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."

    Think about what kind of message a parable like the prodigal son is sending. Is this consistent with conservative or liberal ideology?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2009
  24. Sep 13, 2009 #23
    Re: Science

    Stop changing the topic. Don't ask me to read the new testament. We will take the notion of liberal to mean:

    lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
    adj.
    1.
    a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

    Again, let us consider the ideal cases and the fundamental values associated with each party and that conservatism is indeed on the right-wing of the political spectrum.

    With those assumptions,

    the conservative ideology in its true nature has very little means of advancing society forward and resists fundamental change in preservation of the status-quo. This mind set does not treat all of its citizens equally, therefore, is detrimental to the freedoms and growth of a society.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2009
  25. Sep 13, 2009 #24

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: Science

    Why go away from religion? Your viewpoint on what constitutes liberals versus conservatives is religion. Good versus evil.

    Liberals are the opposite of broad minded. They just like to think they are. This thread is living proof.
     
  26. Sep 13, 2009 #25
    Re: Science

    Look, I just don't want to read the New testament, I'm not going away from religion.. This is not about Good versus evil.

    Your second statement may have some truth to it but your judging based on my expressed opinions. Nevertheless irrelevant.

    Let us assume further that those who represent the people should have a moral obligation to ensure the well-being of all its citizens and not one that puts its religious beliefs before its people or one that promotes social injustice or one that misinforms and incites fear amongst the public to divide and control and its people. Thus, I would have to say that conservatism is rather primitive.

    “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” - Sir Winston Churchill

    History has shown us clearly how dangerous democracy can be and it's not only the fault of the elected leaders, but the electorate that voted for them. Hence, as long as conservatism and its proponents exist within the political spectrum, I remain a liberal.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2009
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook