It Does Take Some Thought
"Think of a single problem confronting the world today," says Bill Bryson, in full rhetorical flow. "Disease, poverty, global warming… If the problem is going to be solved, it is science that is going to solve it. Scientists tend to be unappreciated in the world at large, but you can hardly overstate the importance of the work they do. If anyone ever cures cancer, it will be a guy with a science degree." There is a fractional pause, then a sheepish smile. "Or a woman with a science degree."
[…]
"You don't need a science degree to understand about science," [Bryson] insists. "You just need to think about it."[Max Davidson, "Bill Bryson: 'Have faith, science can solve our problems' ", Telegraph [UK], 26 September 2010.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, It's Only Rocket Science
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Sunday, 3 October 2010 at 07.26
Permalink
Statistically speaking he was initially correct, and for biological reasons. But I realize it is important for the politically correct to signal their absorption of the proper doctrine.
I'm wondering if science has merely allowed humans to build huge industrial Ponzi schemes that collapse with the extinction of the most scarce necessary resource (phosphorus?). Stay tuned.
on Sunday, 3 October 2010 at 10.57
Permalink
Science probably has, since the recent history of humankind's economic expansion (beyond hunter-gathering, then subsistence farming), has pretty much meant the exploitation of non-renewable, not easily renewable, and simply not renewed resources. Long-term exponential growth of population plus fixed pool of resources means that sooner or later each mode of exploitation reaches a wall and some new mode has to come along or there's a big crisis amongst the population–wars, famines, and plagues often seem to happen then (but that's not their sole cause by any means).
Science has obviously fueled the current mode of exploitation since the industrial revolution got underway, making it possible to consume resources much more effectively, but also ameliorating the effects more than ever before. Whether the green revolution was a boon or bane depends, I suppose on your perspective on the good or bad of enabling a continued expansion of the human population way beyond Malthus' wildest nightmares. Science to blame? Science to the rescue? I tend to think science merely is, it's a tool of human dreams and desires as well as destruction and subjugation.
But I think Bryson's point was less metaphysical and simply practical, and specifically in response to the British government's announcement of big cuts in funding for basic research. Namely, that there are big problems around today and if they're going to get solved, they're going to get solved by people doing science, and cutting funding for research therefore is not the best long-term policy.