It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

The suggestion of power hungry bureaucrat not of a scientist

Comments

I didn’t make a comprehensive check but as far as I can think of all of the technological and scientific discoveries we considered great were the kind that enable human beings to do more. I can’t recall even one good invention that was intended to restrict us from doing the things that will make us happier (The question if those invention actually made us happier is completely different question.). I can think of some inventions that aimed at restricting us - torture equipments for example - but those can hardly be called good inventions.

Not surprisingly is the fact that those scientists who choose to be part of world organizations, committees and regulatory work usually are capable only for ideas that are from the restricting type. After all, they aren’t really dealing with science, or technology, but with politics and exercising power over other people. And it get to the point that suggesting something like this seems perfectly acceptable:

People should cut their consumption of meat to help combat climate change, a top United Nations expert told a British Sunday newspaper.

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told The Observer that people should start by having one meat-free day per week then cut back further.

The 68-year-old Indian economist, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

I wonder if the acclaimed scientist even noticed when he gave up his soul in exchange of political influence.

Tags: , , ,

Related posts

Written by Rogel

September 9th, 2008 at 8:55 am

Posted in In The News

Tagged with , , ,

« Extreme case of exaggeration
Not my fault! »

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Science, as an abstract idea, is value neutral. It has, as an abstract idea, no intension of causing good nor bad, just a method of increasing knowledge. Scientists, however, are human and humans engage in the doing of good and bad. That has nothing to do with the notion of science, and everything to do with the notion of humanity. That said, science is a human endeavor (I know not of any other living species engaged in science) and therefore the two (good/bad intent and science) are only separate analytically. That is, the separation exists only in our mind.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree that one cannot find real separation, and that the gray area between seeking the truth and knowledge and seeking for power is very wide. However sometimes it is, like pornography, very clear - and you know it when you see it.
    On a side note - it is good to have you back!
    • ^
    • v
    Like pornography, it will always exist, whether you (or I, or anybody else) think it should or should nt. Aren’t you the individualist type that if I were to, say, want to restrict pornography tell me that I can ignore it on my own if I choose?
    Unlike pornography the nonsense of bad science is hardly damaging to children, as bad scientists (like good ones, unfortunately) choose to speak in so-called sophisticated high jargon, which is not comprehendible to most (children apply here) and of little interest to the rest (well educated, yet reasonable, adults apply here).
    Unlike pornography, the dangers of disturbing good scientists via contribution to the ill understanding of science by most of the general public, even if done to denounce bad scientists, is usually higher than the actual gain of denouncing bad science.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't think that we should, or could, restrict someone freedom of speech - even not bad scientist. Thats, however, shouldn't stop us from pointing at them and call them for what they are.
    As for the damaging influence of mixing science with policy making compared to pornography - I'm not so sure that your unequivocal statement is correct. Most people know that pornography isn't good, I don't think that they have the same defense mechanism when it comes to people like Rajendra Pachauri.
    • ^
    • v
    Unlike you, and the all too American stereotypic argument regarding the so called freedom of speech, I think it definitely should be, and definitely is, restricted in numerous occasions. When a professional uses his professional earned reputation, and/or recourses, in a deceptive manner, I do indeed think professional bodies should apply sanctions (which if severe enough can be very useful restrictions). However, going back to science, and scientist, I don’t think this is a good case where such should apply.
    • ^
    • v
    Obviously restriction should apply to other than your profession :)
    Restriction on the freedom of speech exist. I just signed the an agreement that include a clause in which I agree not to say bad things about my previous employer (and believe me - I had more than few things to say). However this was not coerced by someone with the ability to point gun to my head. I do actually like the american stereotypic argument, mostly because a close look at the more sophisticated approach revels oppression and abuse of power.
    I do agree with you, however, that it would not be wise to restrict scientist to express their opinion, even when it has very little to do with science. I am only pointing out that abused his position in the UN and his status as scientist to try to coerce a valid ideological position as a scientific truth.
    • ^
    • v
    Restriction should definitely be applied (and is indeed applied) to science, and scientists. However, I am a strong believer that application of restrictions needs to be balanced, and in accordance with the expected damage that might arise if restrictions are not put into play.

    As to “American” stereotypic argument, I mostly find them dull. There’s a lot of great thinking going on in America. But, American politics and public debate do an excellent job ignoring it. In academic circles, however, I find a lot of the debate stimulating.

    One final point. It is my own opinion that legal relationships in today’s corporate orientated world have nothing to do with personal freedoms of any kind, unless used as a mirror (reversed) reflection. These relations are a prime example of power-politics in which those with ample powers have obtained what I would label as undesired civil advantages. In this regard, modern economies going under the pretence labeling of “capitalism” would far better fit what Adam Smith labeled “mercantilism”, or “mercantile societies”. The difference, stripped of all nuance and quite simply described, is that while capitalism would infer the acquisition of capital by most tiers of society, mercantilism relates to the acquisition of capital by a select, small numbered, group of “merchants” and the translation of this capital into formal political dominance. Despite the widespread (mis)use of democratic lingo, I find that the social and political relations in most countries today resembles the mercantile stereotype to a far greater extent than it does capitalism. The “merchants” however exercise their powers (and invest many milliards of dollars) to have us educated to think otherwise.

    I think we’ve more or less (figure of speech… it’s definitely more…) exhausted this topic.

    Cheers,
    Zoolish

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus