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

Evolution of our socio-economic system - what should scientists do about it?

  1. Aug 7, 2011 #1
    1 - 'Current socio-economic system is an artifact of (thus-far) intellectual development' -a fact of biological and anthropological sciences.
    2 - Genetic imperative drives the life-form to 'live as long as possible as a life-form' -human in particular here -a same such fact of biological sciences
    3 - Science (and mathematics), therefore, is ineluctably 'stuck' as the only agency of such doing -destined therein.
    4 - All 'government and economics', then, will inevitably come to be reconstituted about science-and-mathematics toward that heuristic end

    What the scientists should do about this logic?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 7, 2011 #2
    What do you think scientists should do - about this logic?
  4. Aug 7, 2011 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  5. Aug 7, 2011 #4
    scientists should form the group that will become a seed group to "speed up" this inevitable process

    this seed group of scientists will form sooner or later but the sooner the better because every day counts as the socio-economic system out of our primitive evolutionary origins as warm-blooded verterbrates comletely ignores genetic imperative

    as the result of "operating out of ignorance" mankind is steadily corrupts resoursce/environment on which its own viablity and "quality of life" is dependant

    once the system reaches its limits the rebalancing will entail the die-off of many many people which should not have been born in the first place - a process that is already under way in many parts of the planet

    the sooner scientists form the group with the view to be the basis for institutionalization of the logic of my original post the sooner will "melioration of human condition" be possible
  6. Aug 7, 2011 #5
    For clarification - is your concern that medical science (for instance - only a select example) is too cautious or conservative?
  7. Aug 7, 2011 #6
    I have reviewed the guidlines again and did not immediately see how my suggestion for the thread is inappropriate.

    Is this thread in the wrong place in the forum?
  8. Aug 7, 2011 #7
    I think it might be helpful if you clarify your main point of concern.
  9. Aug 7, 2011 #8
    to answer your question i woud need clarify with you your definition of "cautious" and "conservative"

    my original post refered to "science" as the process of accumulation of knowledge in such a way that each "addition" is consistant and non-contradictory to the whole body of knowledge

    science is about refining the definition towards decreasing or eliminating ambiguity
  10. Aug 7, 2011 #9
    That is fair. My intent is to define cautious and conservative in this discussion as careful and peer-reviewed - also making small advances and building on established results.
  11. Aug 7, 2011 #10
    my interest is to discuss evolution of our socio-economic system as it is implied by the accumulated to date science and what scientists should do when they step out of their labs and are doing what non-scientists are doing - that is to continuing "default human condition" withat regard to what they have learned in their labs
  12. Aug 7, 2011 #11
    you have described how all science progresses medical or any other branch
  13. Aug 7, 2011 #12
    Yes and after reading your previous post I realize you are not concerned with the methods used - instead you are interested in how scientists respond to their findings - correct?
  14. Aug 7, 2011 #13
    not exactly

    scientists are "scientists" only in their labs and when they step out they are like "everybody else" who "has kids to feed and bills to pay"

    my post is about the fact that such situation is not sustainable over deep (evolutionary) time

    the science has progressed enough by 1960ties to be able to reach such conclusion

    the scientists will eventually have no other choice but act as "scientists" outside the lab as well
  15. Aug 7, 2011 #14
    Aside from experimentation (or classified work) - are scientists not already working more outside of their labs on home office or laptop computers?
  16. Aug 7, 2011 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    atodorov, maybe it's because you don't speak English, but you really don't have a clear POV.
  17. Aug 7, 2011 #16
    i did not mean your literal interpretation of "outside" :)

    i meant more along the lines of scientists thinking a behaving a certain way when they discuss science they do with their peers and the way they think and behave when they express opinions and act upon their "beliefs" on the topics and issues that are outside their narrow "scientific" focus

    a good example would be a scientist that professes "belief in god" or feels compelled to fight on the side of "atheism": when he does his science he does not care about existance or non-existance of such concept as "god" but when he steps outside the lab he feels that he changes his ways and suddenly is compelled to seriously consider the issue of existence or non-existence of god

    the "faith/atheism" debate is just an example; there are numerous others about a multitude of "beliefs" that strictly speaking are completely outside of science
  18. Aug 7, 2011 #17
    everybody always has a point of view

    if you are interested in understanding my point of view and are willing to spend your time clarifying the definitions i am willing to spend my time engaging in the discussion

    this is precisely what is going on now with me and WhoWee
  19. Aug 7, 2011 #18
    I think it might be difficult to raise children in a "fact based" environment - kids need emotional connections.
  20. Aug 7, 2011 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Please clearly state what you are posting about. Give me a short, to the point, clear statement of what you wish to discuss.

    Your thread title is "evolution of our socio-economic system - what should scientists do about it?" I have yet to see anything about this.
  21. Aug 7, 2011 #20
    "fact based" <> "lacking emotional connections"

    "emotion" = "the response to _fact_ without employment of 'conscious mind of reflexion'"

    emotion is the "older" in evolutionary terms than "deliberative capability"

    it is not possible to be "emotionless" but disciplined thinking and adherence to scientific method builds connectivity in the brain that favours certain emotions over the others

    in my experience people who never stop learning are "better" parents simply because they pay more attention to the trajectory of cognitive development of their children
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook