Spain because of austerity (hope they survive the latest) requires that things be kept simple .. Now really BobSheep there is more fault to find in the report than that, right? give it a chance buddy
And that would be the "strictly objective science"... ermmm, not so "independent" since nowadays largely funded by the "industry".... but nevertheless "objective"... Like with DDT and many other endocrine disruptor, accounting for humongous drop in fertility and rise in cancers etc., then various medicines (remember, for instance, deformed newborn babies in huge numbers due to thalidomide?), safety of the "pill" (when men working in those factories started growing boobs), safety of nuclear energy (when even scientists were dying, not just soldier guinea pigs on test sites...)... And when concerns were raised, then we had the "scientific" answer "There is no clear evidence that xyz is harmful to..." until it was way too late for far too many... Look, I thought we (as Humanity) have grown over the "science is infallible & technology is great" uncritical belief, and that we have therefore set up civilian bodies scrutinising/overseeing the activities of various "I am only a scientist and I am simply pursuing my profession in creating... hybrid creatures...." for instance... Because we do need a wider perspective, rather than a narrowly scientific one, from a very small cut-out of reality, a body or set of scrutinising bodies dealing with various implications of "scientific discovery and application" onto the wider community. And for my money, we should have the same control over the military scientists and in effect stop them from developing any kind of "special, hybrid creatures" while trying to kill everything that moves as efficiently as possible... So, science alone was never a good judge of what is going on in the world. Sometimes it takes a "commoner" to take them by the hand and show them the results. What Oppenheimer did after the bomb was used was... cretinous... like he couldn't figure it out beforehand?!? Some "genius"... These days we have clusters of cancers along the power lines, huge increase in infertility and cancer of the reproductive system, plus malformations of those organs and we need to take the dear scientists to the effluent disposal units and shove their heads into it, for them to acknowledge that they are NOT infallible and "only great"... So, sometimes it is justified to take one of those and pin their heads on the wall of a nuclear reactor or warhead, stuff them with some radioactive fish or crustaceans and ask them then if they feel great? Or maybe feed their children with beef fed with other cows exhibiting BSE?!? Those lads were also claiming "there is no definitive proof..." for a looooooong time... And we know better now... So, I suggest not to take science as a holder of the holy grail of truth alone, guys! It's unbecoming of adult Human Kind! Just like it was unbecoming to take the Church in the same vane, a while back! We don't need a pseudo-religion, a belief of that sort, I think! We are a great disruptor of the wider eco-system, we are doing some serious harm, polluting beyond belief, having ever more power and therefore capacity to harm, plus there is ever more of us, doing it in an un-thinking manner... And we say "Nothing to do with us, Gov"?!? Seriously...
25 000 people die everyday from hunger, that is 9.1 million per year, if the trend remains then by 2030 it will be 154.7 million. What have the Spanish done about this ? I don't see Gore and co. rushing off to help help starving people, not much incentive in that is there now ? OMG a whole 220 people this year, for this year this is the 270th day of the year, 6.75 million people died from starvation. Who knows how many more died from infectious diseases due to no medical care. Oooh look International Aid
You are missing the point. It is not 'science' that is responsible / the issue. It is always the ego. And it is the ego who never was a good judge. There where money rules and a false idea of wealth is lived. And as you are a consumer in a western society you are a part of the issue. Who else than scientists are competent to measure global warming? You, being at home? To take it serious, that is the problem and that problem is beyond science. The problem is that most of us have a polluted self-identification and hence they pollute the nature which is actually not different to their own 'idea'. The invention of a knife is no problem (science), but if one kills with it or cooks a good meal is a matter of self-understanding. Add: Thalidomide is one of the best anti-cancer and leprosy cure we have got....the problem had been that we didn't know how it actually works...it inhibits a growth factor which is of course fatal when used if pregnant, but this inhibition is the cure for special kinds of cancer (myeloma) ..... a way to put something in bad light: to choose only the bad things....bravo. Btw: If a pregnant woman has the need to take sleeping pills /pregnancy nausea suppressor (original indication of Thalidomide) then I have to ask why at all...she awaits new life and is not sick, but she herself wants to sleep and to suppress what is quite normal..
No, m8, you missed the point completely on several levels. Let me elucidate the issues here, please: It is our product, Science as it is, in a Capitalist world. Science itself, as it is, can not be seen as value neutral, like a knife or a hammer. Science has so much power that these must be thought through carefully, before the use of its products can do harm. It is the inner logic of Science and we better respect it. We have far too much power today not to think through the potential global consequences of today's discoveries... Now, if we are going into the 'ego mantra': I suggest you study Habermas, to enlighten yourself of the other possibilities within Modernity, i.e. Inter-Subjective paradigm! And I can not stress it sufficiently enough! Maybe you get somewhere serious in your musings on the topic, without being either unfair or missing the point completely... Of course we are. We have no choice but to consume - food, drink, clothes, somewhere to live, we must move around and so forth. But! If one adheres to (and especially believes in) the consumer-driven Capitalist model/paradigm (especially of Neo-Liberal, Neo-Darwinist type) or not is another matter entirely... But that depends on one's education and system of values, talents etc. etc. Really independent scientists, not being connected directly or indirectly, to the "industry" - a paradigm we have in our time but the paradigm that is being eroded, little by little... sadly... A scientists with elementary Humanist education, hence a scientist with a conscience, morally competent, not just technically/professionally, broadly speaking "intellectually" competent. Because, Doktor Mengele was also very "competent" but... Indeed. See, for instance, the work of Frankfurt School, on the subject. I recommend the lightly (without the technical jargon) written Erich Fromm's work. "To have or to be" being paradigmatic, in this sense. There, one can see where the whole thing is grounded. And how to overcome it, individually and then collectively... in a manner of speaking... Errrm, no, this is a serious error in judgement by terribly oversimplifying the problem. See above. Science is way too complex and serious a matter to be misperceived and misjudged/misinterpreted like this... To make things a bit more serious: both Left and Right, politically and Philosophically speaking, have elucidated the serious problem that today's Science and Technology represent! This is no joke and everyone agrees that one must be serious about it, careful and methodical and non-partisan, when it comes to those issues. Scientists with any seriousness will also conclude this is so. Ergo... I'll give you but one example which you may know about, since you are a Chemist: phthalates. See this: https://www.google.lu/search?q=phta...cp.r_qf.&fp=bfe9e108dc9798d8&biw=1366&bih=612 Everywhere. In almost everything we use. And we have known of their disruptive nature for "nature" (in us and around us) for a while now. Especially in America, with various, most serious problems for wildlife and us, they know about for decades now. They started banning such products a long time ago. But the story continues. And sure, it is beyond Science alone. But Science is the one lending a hand in continuing the threat to life itself, so go figure... No, bravo to you, Sir, for choosing to omit why it was put on the market, how and how much it was "tested", just what kind of incredible arrogance by "scientists" was behind the untold tragedy... And you missed zillions of other examples. In various areas of science and technology. God knows how many more we shall discover as we go along. Incredible arrogance of Science and tech! Try to blame it on the mothers... Bravo! Btw, the use of the medicine today has nothing to do with its inception! This terribly late and utterly misguided effort at the defence of the drug's initial usage and the harm it had done - is tragic! Unbelievable! Some women's bodies are worse in this respect than others. Some such problems are easily tolerable, sure. But not all!!! Maybe you should inform yourself about just how bad it can be? Maybe a little bit of empathy wouldn't go amiss, from a Scientist... If that is not too much to ask for... Also, testing their products better. Then, releasing it only when really safe. Is that too much to ask of Science and Tech? And no, thank you, for the "scape-goat-ing" of those in need of help, for the failures of Science and Tech... Especially the seriously needy ones, thanx a bunch! What happened with the "arrogance of the (now your) ego" being suppressed on your quest to more "feeling" the way to "being", suddenly? Once Science (Chemists) are properly blamed for their misconduct (professionally and morally), suddenly "ego" is not to be addressed but the blame is to be redirected to those who depend on their help? Jeez! I think I'll pass such "simply being without an ego", thanx...
General context here (especially the lovely white "intro" on black background - quite telling! ): http://www.mega.nu/ampp/176krkpt.htm and the least s**tty "school of thought" we have today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School Here is an example, just to try to ground the debate in something, of critical thinking, from a Philosopher, when it comes to "popular thinking" on various subjects attached to this debate, since many seem to see Science and Technology at worst only benevolently, and at best as "saviours" of Mankind: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88534126/Ljubodrag-Simonovic-Zeitgeist-fascism To a concrete subject now: human fecundity and chemical industry - http://www.reproductivegenetics.org/Is_human_fecundity_declining.pdf One may apply those types of thinking to global warming or any such matter, then... Rationally! See this, for instance: http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/adorno-and-the-weather or http://anarchiststudies.org/node/484 Have "fun"...
Do you believe this ? According to the 16 scientists listed at the end of this WSJ article “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy” A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.” Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet. If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review. Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
One can see much "longer and stronger" lists, Scientists, Philosophers, Politicians, Inventors etc. - with more varied backgrounds, supporting the "let's do whatever we can, since we are doing a lot of damage to Earth". And I find that compelling and an adult thing to do, for Humanity! While raising valid points, in the letter quoted by Sid, I find this jump to conclusions without evidence or methodology behind it simply out of their league: To state that, one would have to have a serious education in matters they do not have an overview of... Hence seriously biased, from what I can see... Easily seen here, for which "team" they bang the drum: See my post above, as to what "other serious improvements to health" the Science and Technology bring to the "technologically advanced countries"... Especially with ever more pollution to Brazils, Chinas and Indias of this world... Yeah, lay a little "industry on us" and we'll live happily ever after...
What I find funny is: A) There is conclusive proof that there was increased CO2 levels millions of years before man, we are at the low end of the CO2 scale now and; B) CO2 and warming are not linked based on past CO2 and temperature records. So why: A) Do we see CO2 as the primary cause of warming and; B) Why do we need to do something to fix it? I can give you one big reason, money it's all about the money. We scam and collect and live life in luxury. It's no different from the Religious scam artists. Don't do as I do, do as I say.
Maybe. Some of the "green" effort is now just industry/business, sure! And it is possibly quite wrong! But I find compelling the idea that we should do everything we can do so we minimise our impact on the environment. Since we are borrowing this Earth from the generations that will follow... So, we are polluting the Earth incredibly, as can be seen from my previous posts, please see links... Against the very possibility to procreate, even... Should we not do whatever we can to stop it? Also, is the message not the wrong one, in such statements Sid provided? "Keep on polluting", it's OK? Because it means "unimpeded growth"? Capitalist mantra. But what does it actually mean? Anyone thought about that seriously?
What did we pollute, if "pollute" means dumping your trash and dangerous chemicals in the oceans and on the land then I support any project to stop that happening. But if you are going to tell me I'm dumping too much CO2 in the atmosphere then I would say you are talking crap. If you were to take the CO2 nonsense personally it could also mean they don;t want us to breathe or they don't want us to breathe as often. Seven billion people all exhaling, that's a lot of CO2, get an oxygen tax dammit
Not really, no, as we also have to eat and that's a lot of cows etc. But we are pumping ever more - and that's the point. Cumulative charge. Many sources. Ever less forests, some of which we completely cleared off, in EU etc. Then, attack on the oceans and so on and on... I am not an expert in this area and I am not claiming anything definitively re. CO2 alone, just so you are not misunderstanding what I am saying... But I am claiming that we are an absolutely humongous polluter/disruptor in more ways than one and we must take a different, adult approach! I grew up in a small industrial place with a large factory, which polluted the air, water and soil pretty badly! To us and anything downstream! And that was a fraction of what I have seen in the US, UK and elsewhere in the world! And one of the sections was sold to the factory by Sweden, which banned it! So, this dumping of bad technology is - awesome... not... Anyone remembers (London) coal and smog etc.? No need, see China and India today... We are terrible ATM... Need to grow up! And fast!
gorski, you are assigning a general issue of self-identification of humans to the scientists. Responsibility can only have somebody who knows what a ' healthy human' is at all. The one must live it to can show this responsibility to others. If one's god is money then it doesn't matter if he's scientist or another person. To me it's pure case of a false idea what one is here in the world. What about all the bosses who exploit their workers? At inhuman conditions? Doctors who sell organs? Generally spoken: it are the criminals, not the scientists! We are here talking about pollution and that is a crime. And concerning safety of pharmaceutical products. The Thalidomide case could not be avoided! It seems you have only a biased knowledge here. How do scientists gain that safety? Would you let go your pregnant wife to a study of a new medicine to test if there could be harm? No! Then you have no right for a 100% safe medicine! The actions weren't noticeable at all previous tests and everybody knows that medicine cannot be fully tested if pregnant even for that reason. Concerning Thalidomide it had bee a tragedy but no crime. The effects were not predictable due to lack of scientific methods that day. So I can say science has failed here. But science never can be 100% safe. If your decision is to swallow something then you must be aware that it can harm yourself. People are more and more allergic against a great variety of substances. And regarding a pregnant women who has nausea. You don't get the point. To declare pregnancy nausea to be a sickness that needs a cure is it. To be pregnant /have nausea is a natural thing and to take medicine against that is the sickness. There are much better therapies to relief that such has yoga and autogenic training. To take a pill for own sickness is actually the sickness in our society. I am talking of sicknesses / medicine such as headache, tranquilizer, anti depressants, stimulants, hypnotics. Why do you think they are sold that much? Because we need to work more and more to satisfy our permanently raising consume. The sickness is not found at science it is found in our society. The sickness is called self-alienating (ego). I bet if there wouldn't be that pills our society would have WWIII already. And this sickness is polluting our bodies by consuming (medicine also) and polluting the nature. The condition of our collective ego-mind hadn't been that sick since the existence of humans. We satisfy our need to consume. We need resources for it, we pollute the nature, we discuss about if there is a danger or not. But the ego has a discord. He wants to consume and he has to decide if we have an issue with our nature (global warming) or not..this is sick. We need to recognize what we actually do not want to know!!!! If there is no change in awareness we will destroy our planet.
Oh, Yen, you really need to learn to qualify your statements... I shall demonstrate... I certainly am not. How on Earth did you get to that conclusion? I have said Humanity as a whole has to grow up. Many times. In fact, every time I post! I know you know my signature, so... But for special "achievements" one gets special commendations. When things are working. When they are not, one must take the blame, too! One does not go without the other! Clearer now? Or you do not agree that Scientists have anything to be sorry about, to feel guilty or to blame for? It's nothing to do with them? It's as Sartre said: "Hell? That's others!" (And I know you know a bit about Sartre, so... ) Yes. And...? What does that mean exactly? We can not have any responsibility from anyone, if they are money-driven? We can not hold them to account? What are you implying? Scientists are exempt from special accountability/responsibility/guilt for their misdeeds because they are also in capitalism? C'mon, man... you can do better than that... Sure. But it is some scientists creating new technologies, plus telling us porkies at times ("It is perfectly safe!"). Not "everybody". Not politicians. Not Philosophers. So, Scientists - in particular, since they have the tools to scrutinise their colleagues properly! - should take responsibility for their own part in it. What is controversial in this? Oh, btw, relativising this is a non-starter! If some are doing wrong on their level or in their "sphere", it can not excuse or justify others doing wrong in their area. Especially if the potential for harm is considerably bigger (scientists, bankers, politicians, industrialists, military people, intelligence services etc.), than in other areas ("everyday, lay- people"). More influence, more power comes with MORE (not less!!!) responsibility. And if one does something (directly) really bad, then guilt, too! Not just (co-)responsibility but guilt! Biological or chemical weapons, nuclear disaster of some sort or other - included! As in any other areas of human activity. Not controversial, to my mind, at all... Wow! I thought this is exactly why the various procedures to test the medicines were created, even though we may not get 100%. But they are there to make them safe. Not to push the drugs onto the market improperly tested. Although it is the pharmaceutical companies (some scientist among them, again) who keep "cutting corners", "speeding up", and even sometimes doing various human trials on unsuspecting humans (Africa and India, for instance, remember?). The last part is abominable! But it does happen occasionally! And it takes scientists to do them! And I think to prevent them, also! So, are scientists taking responsibility for their part in all this? Or are they guilty, if they are doing it? Or is there a role for a critically minded philosopher in all this, in today's world, even?!? Btw, because of all such horrors from some really arrogant scientists and at least parts of pharmaceutical industry, that we have better and longer testing procedures today. They still try to lie and scheme their way past the legislation and authorities, but it is much more difficult now. Anyway, as you obviously do not know (or are pretending not to know?), phase three in new drugs trials is human volunteers tests. Why do you think this is so?!? No, it is not that simple and clear cut. They could have tested better even then! But they chose not to. Faster profits. And more arrogance. Science and technology were pushed/promoted, back then, as the "know all and fix all" human activity. Even today, by some (I mentioned the Zeitgeist, as one of those backward movements and ideologies without any really critical higher brain activity but blind, religious faith behind them: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88534126/Ljubodrag-Simonovic-Zeitgeist-fascism)! Moreover, the women were assured by the "industry" and medical profession that this is perfectly safe. "There is no clear evidence" is the phrase used even today all too often. Until people die or suffer terribly (BSE, for instance). Only then do they change procedures etc. Is that the way to go? I don't think so! Maybe you should really inform yourself before you write some utterly insensitive stuff like that! This type of reaction of yours is bringing bad stereotypes to the fore, I must say... There are milder (where I agree with you, of course) and then there are severe cases of this sort. Some go on for 9 months of the pregnancy, with serious strength. So, having made the drug and then pushed it forward/advertised it, plus the medical profession and their part in it, would you still say "Nothing to do with the scientists or medical profession, it's only the women here who are to be blamed for Thalidomide tragedy!"?!? I would add this: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/Medicines/Pharmacovigilancelegislation/index.htm and this http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index....news_detail_001571.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1 Because of all these terrible cases, now the "industry" (based on some science and scientists, you would have to agree) is going to be scrutinised even further. EU is changing even the latest legislation (2010), since they have realised in the meantime that there are still loopholes to exploit by the industry, and very soon even more stringent legislation is being brought forward, to further improve the procedures needed to allow a drug onto the market, having in mind even more "side-effects", to protect the general population from. Do you agree it is necessary or not? Namely, EU have quickly figured out that the latest legislation is simply inadequate to do the job. So, as you can see, we can be responsible, we can learn, we can improve and we can take "the other" into account. Not just let them have it from science, in a "blind faith" manner... (You could have learnt this lesson from Systems Theory, for instance. Search a little on the net...) Sure, Herr Doktor, tell it to women who are seriously sick for 9 months... See what comes your way... To take a pill is sometimes necessary. And when it is - it better be safe! Full stop! No "ifs and buts"! We can do more, we must do more! I would agree that taking pills for anything is wrong, of course. In some cases it certainly is a completely unjustifiable matter! However, you should know which ones to attack, not seriously sick mothers to be... Sure. But in some cases they may be necessary! I can tell you a story of my friend, who lost his wife to alcoholism and drugs (and his mother to depression and suicide, which he witnessed, just as his wife's mother died in his wife's arms). He needed anti-depressants for a while, for his kids, if nothing else. He needed time. A respite in which to function, so he can do the necessary things... Would you have denied it to him? I am with you when it comes to over-medication (see US and UK in particular, drugged up to their eyeballs and beyond!) but your unqualified statement is seriously flawed and as such policy made from it would have hurt many people needlessly! There are headaches and then there are real headaches. How do you measure? What one can do is properly inform and educate people, which is more difficult but necessary and much more valuable path! I agree with the first statement. The second is your interpretation which is questionable, to say the least. Science is fuelling this need. It can not happen without science, not on this scale! The third I can't possibly agree with, having in mind your 'understanding' of the very notion of "ego"... Hey, back off! That is MY IDEA!!!! You see, I was gonna suggest implanting all the would-be-politicians, business people, financiers, bankers etc, with Viagra! Subdermally! We should see the drop in wars and general s**t immediately! And then I will get the Nobel prize for peace, whilst I would nominate the guys who invented it for NP in Chemistry... Fair, isn't it? So, you see, there is a place for drugs in our society!!! All of those who can't get it up no longer, would have a proper outlet for such energies, no more frustrations taken on all of us etc. etc. Oh, please, include the judges, lawyers, the Police, Military and Intelligence services in it, too... Thanx be to a specific form of Capitalism and Science... it has to be said! I beg your pardon? I mean... this is... all over the place... no can make heads or tails of it... But that is MY point, apportioning the proper blame to capitalism as such, its servants, be it bankers, businessmen or whichever mask Capital takes, and sometimes it is the Scientists who are at the forefront of such "inventive" nature of pollution... Maybe if you read a bit from Critical Theory - a few things would be clearer...
Oh, here is more ammunition for your musings about drugs: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...isk-dangerous-levels-of-clarity-2012060729650 Enjoy!
"I beg your pardon? I mean... this is... all over the place... no can make heads or tails of it..." Wouldn't that be an job for a Philosopher? I mean it is obvious that we have that discord between consume interest and to take pollution seriously, it's an ego conflict which resides in everybody of us. A new idea of nature and our Self, which is conform to our (true) nature? No? I don't want to go off topic, but let me add to safety of medicine. I had been involved in synthetic drug research (now phyto-medicine research). I went along with the entire developing process from the day one where I had the brand new substance in my hands till its approval for market release. Our work group holds hundreds of patents. So I am glad I finally can refer on something I am a pro. I am familiar with all states of development and research. It takes around 12 years and the rules are made and controlled by Government. Pre-clinical and clinical studies need to be approved by Government. Studies in vivo are important for several pharmacological reasons. Responsibility for safety of medicine is also a government's job. And the company where I work shows a high responsibility to their potential consumers, I cannot speak for others and I don't want to go further in detail, because it is off topic. But you may open a different thread if interested in details.
I just love it when you agree with me on all the things I have carefully considered... P.S. No, that is not the job of a Philosopher but your English teacher and maybe editor...
In the U.S. we are in the middle of a presidential election and what seems to be absent from serious debate during, this time of choosing, is where is each on climate change. They are willing to talk about more or less government regulation in general terms and how less regulation is better for the economy .. @Yen you say " It takes around 12 years and the rules are made and controlled by Government" that is 3 presidential election cycles here and during the course of bringing the product to a U.S. market there are many forces at work to assure it's emergence into the pharmaceutical market place .. My point is who gets elected president has a great deal more to do with whether your product emerges successfully in U.S. markets than the products merits or proper testing. This sad truth is the backbone of not so free market capitalism and a democracy being sold to the highest bidder .. I am certain you are well aware of this. I only point it out with the hopes that a more truthful debate can emerge about regulation .. Embracing the truth is something we both practice and is always on topic for me personally.
Sorry I don't get it. To initiate a complete new awareness of nature and one's self is not job of Philosophy? To start a rethinking process in a society?