Cancel the Science Fair

Symbolism / Victor Hugo/ Abstract Composition

Heading over to the ex’s today so that me and the boys can pay Mother’s Day homage.  I don’t mind doing it, I am happy to praise an activity that I sure as hell wouldn’t have done.  Truth be told, It would have probably been easier for me to do it, a seven pound baby coming out of a 2M, 160 Kg being seems a bit more fair than the little person that in fact did the heavy lifting on this deal.  There is a strong possibility that I have taken bigger shits than the average sized baby.  

So I do homage.  Rightfully so.

Michael graced us with another guest post.  I did take the liberty of adding a footnote with a gentle gloss on the particular number being bandied about. 

 

CANCEL THE SCIENCE FAIR?

Why do people think that a scientist is smart? Why, for example, is a person who works inside the nucleus of cells or atoms, assumed to be smart, rather than obnoxious and dangerous? 

Supposedly, 25% [1] of the human population has an IQ in the range 140-145, which is classified as genius level, so probably at least every fourth person could be a scientist working inside cells or atoms, if they had the desire and opportunity.

But most young people probably are not interested enough in atoms to develop a strong enough desire to study the all the required subjects, for all the years required to be a top-notch scientist.  Thus, the distinguishing feature of the scientist is their desire – their desire to make consequential discoveries inside cells or atoms, or to be recognized for making consequential discoveries.

*****

The history of the human race thus far shows that once humans have created a weapon, it will eventually be used to kill other humans, unless a more advanced version is used instead. There is no exception to this trend right up to the modern use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The same history of the human race shows that the ability to make increasingly lethal weapons, comes directly from the work of scientists, with nothing needed in between - other than modernly a request from politicians for a more lethal weapon at a certain price.

Thus, scientific advancements made by scientists working inside of atoms and cells, will be used to make advancements in nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction, which will be used, or superseded by a more lethal version that will be used instead.

*****

In neighborhoods everywhere, people who are not scientists have interests and desires that make them obnoxious to others. The worst case is a person who pursues an interest that is obnoxious and dangerous. For example, a neighbor on one side might enjoy target shooting drunk with an assault rifle in their back yard, and another neighbor might love fast cars and enjoy street racing in the neighborhood.

To satisfy their own desires, both these individuals must be willing to sacrifice the lives of their neighbors, and so they are, and they do; simple as that. But they are not one-billionth as lethal as a scientist who makes discoveries inside cells or atoms.

*****

Why does it seem preposterous to compare these cases - to say that the scientist is a billion times as dangerous as a drunk neighbor with assault rifle?

Why does the scientist get off the hook? 

It must be that everybody who might have some power to discourage scientific advancement, knows there is no way to stop science, and they reasonably suppose that they have as much right to be cured of a disease, or saved from an enemy, as any human, animal or plant that might exist on earth at any time in the future.

In a culture that does not question the efforts of scientists, how could this attitude be judged immoral given the inevitable end result, which every normal person can calculate for themselves.

What cure, for what disease or virus, could possibly be worth the inevitable destruction of Nature as it exists on the planet earth? The answer is obvious – any disease or virus that might be cured in the meantime. This is how humans roll. 

[1]  I think that Michael’s gracious and expansive view of the frequency of erstwhile “geniuses” may not be entirely accurate.  For further information please refer to:  https://www.123test.com/interpretation-of-an-iq-score/.  But actually, I think that this definition may well offer me the meat of another post.  So thanks!