Blog Archive

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Science is Stuck in a Ghetto:

Where did all the real scientists go?

On the one hand we have theoretical physics, which hasn't made any progress since 1920 or so. Even if the LHC does discover the Higgs, that just confirms what we already knew. There was even an interesting article saying anything beyond the Higgs is absolutely unprovable. It would require a particle accelerator the size of the milky way galaxy to reach the 'next fundamental particle' after the higgs. So basically theoretical physics is dead.

Meanwhile, 'practical' science is just the unending nagging of a Mother: "Clean up the atmosphere, don't leave your carbon strewn all over the air, clean out your fridge, you're making a hole in the ozone. Honestly, why can't you clean your water supply twice a day like I ask -- ?"

'Practical' science, if we ever listened to it, would put us back in the stone age. It's in fact the exact opposite of real science, which is how to advance our civilization's power over the environment. Instead all it talks about is the fearsome environment and how we must obey its needs. Screw that. Nature exists to be conquered and enslaved by mankind, not the other way around. If science can't deliver the goods, then science is worthless.

Whenever I go to the 'science' section of the news, it is inevitably talking about the same damn thing: Global warming. So what if the world warms? So what if it causes floods and droughts? That's what science is for. To invent crops that can handle the weather changes. To artificially cool the Earth at will. To stop floods with dikes. To do whatever we feel like doing. Maybe we should create sky islands and float well above the weather. Or I know, we could global warm this planet to death, and go inhabit another planet, starting the process all over again. I don't want to listen to scientists whine about what we can't do. I want them to tell us what we can do.

In the 1950's it seemed like we had a proper understanding of science. Science was there to unlock the future and provide for the present. Now all science is determined to do is make us 'sustainable' and 'preserve the past.' Who cares if we drive 90% of life to extinction? Is it human life, or is it water fleas? What do I care if the oceans become too acidic for coral reefs? What do I have to do with coral reefs?

When was the scientific age of Flash Gordon and Star Wars hijacked by these nagging worryworts?

Science is no longer science. It's just the political arm of the pagan religion of nature worship. Apparently all the liberals who ceased being Christians still wanted humanity to be subservient to some higher force and so they chose grass and sea fleas and coral reefs instead of an august supernatural dispenser of justice. Do they realize how pathetic that sounds?

There is only one proper target of worship, and that's Man himself. Man, which created everything good in the universe, and everything of value, and is the source of all value in the first place. Before us there was nothing, and no one even knew about it. After us there was everything, and we all knew all about it. It's like night and day. Man should be the only factor in any of our calculations, everything else is dispensable and worthless, unless it somehow helps Man.

Science needs to stop telling us what we need to do to accommodate ourselves to nature. It needs to start telling nature how to accommodate itself to us. The process is called geoengineering. We are the world's masters, and it's time we start acting like it. The fish are running out? Then create fish farms and we'll raise fish to eat ourselves. The world is warming? Then cool it with sprays of water all throughout the ocean powered by the sun or the waves. We can do anything we want. Right now we want to burn oil and coal for cheap energy that heats, cools, lights, drives us around, and runs our factories. We aren't going to give up these comforts, period. It simply isn't going to happen. Science needs to shut the fuck up about 'stopping emissions.' No. It doesn't work that way. We get our cheap power and that's final. If you want us to cut emissions, give us a source of infinite, emission free, cheap power instead. That's the real job of science. To give us whatever we want. It isn't to tell us what we can't have. Why don't all the climate scientists get a damn degree in fusion power instead and give us what we've wanted for a hundred years now?

Or I know, they could quit all their yapping about global warming and study cancer instead. We want a cure to cancer. And aging. And alzheimer's. And everything else too. Go study stem cells, or biology, or whatever, and figure out how to make us immortal.

That's what science is supposed to be doing. That's what it was supposed to have accomplished by now, long ago. In the 1950's we assumed we'd all be immortal and have flying cars powered by Mr. Fusion. What went wrong?

Science decided that was too hard and instead it would be easier to whine and yammer on about how we should go back to the stone age. It doesn't require much intelligence to write a new article every month in a prestigious science journal that humans still inscrutably refuse to return to the stone age, and this is a shame, because scientists refuse to invent anything that could solve this problem, because they're still too busy writing up a new article on why humans should return to the stone age already.

It would be nice if we could round up every worthless climate scientist and science magazine that publishes articles on global warming and throw them into a concentration camp where they are told to make a real invention that genuinely helps out mankind or they can kiss their freedom good bye.

The soviets did it, Solzhenitsyn wrote an entire book about it, called 'The First Circle.' We should just throw them all into a gulag and give them butter rations and eggs based on their results. Give us AI. We were supposed to have AI, and spaceflight, by 2001, you worthless scientists. Maybe a gulag will be better motivation than another banquet celebrating the 20 millionth conference on why we should go back to the stone age at producing real results.

There was recently this ridiculous article on google news, talking about a six months pregnant woman sliding around an icy lake in Alaska, studying the all-important amount of methane bubbles that were being released due to global warming. She talked like her little ice skating adventure was crucial to the fate of the planet, but warned everyone in hushed tones that it would of course require 'much more study,' maybe even an entire lifetime of work, to discover just exactly how this Alaska methane bubbling up from lakes would affect world temperature. I have never heard of such worthless, fake makework. Who cares if the world is 2, 3, or 10 degrees hotter down the road? The job of scientists isn't to tell us what the heat of the world will be 100 years from now. It's to control the heat of the world no matter what is going on. IE, invent a way to cool the planet and it won't MATTER how much methane escapes from your icy pond, you fucking nitwit. Here's a suggestion, why don't we just move the planet physically further away from the sun? There, problem solved, FOREVER.

Stop studying things that don't matter just because it allows you to go on exotic vacations all around the world! How many scientists are getting taxpayer dollars to go on vacations to pacific islands so they can study 'just how high the sea level has risen this year?'

What a joke! It's not your job to measure sea level rises, it's your job to CONTROL THE SEA. TO CONTROL NATURE. Not to jet around the world and stroll around a beach in a bikini!

We spend a pitiful amount of money on space flight. Less than we used to in the 1960's. And our space capabilities are no better than they were 50 years ago. If we had seriously invested in space -- telescopes large enough to find habitable planets abroad, space elevators that could deliver infinite weight worth of goods into orbit, giant space ships that could provide radiation shielding for colonists, we could have left this planet long ago. All the sci fi authors assumed we'd be gone by now. It's 2011. The science has been available all along. We just refuse to implement it. We're too busy cavorting on beaches counting sea turtle hatchlings and taking helicopter tours of the arctic to make sure the polar bears are okay in the face of 'global warming.'

Scientists have betrayed us. They refuse to tell the truth about race and IQ. They sit on their psychometric studies and blather on about known lies like 'stereotype threat.' 150 years ago, Galton discovered that IQ was genetic and that some people had more of it than others. He then immediately leaped to the natural conclusion that we should only allow smart people to breed, so that the world's population quickly became twice as intelligent and sophisticated and healthy and strong and beautiful and moral as before. 150 years later, our scientists are pygmies of cowardice, and refuse to repeat what the brave Galton and the brave Shockley said in the past. The science hasn't changed. In fact, we now have over 100 years of extra data confirming the exact same belief we had 150 years ago: IQ is genetic and has a dramatic impact on every field of endeavor and every quality of life, and it varies between individuals and groups by vast amounts. If scientists would tell the truth, they could lead to a social revolution in the world.

If all the scientists, together, wrote a new article on the necessity of eugenics to improve the human gene pool as they today write articles on 'global warming,' we would have become supermen long ago. Scientists have failed us! They lied to us! They hid their data and their conclusions because they were afraid, they were cowards, and they didn't want the press to call them names. The science has been available all along. We could have instituted these breeding changes long ago -- we could ALREADY BE LIVING IN THE FUTURE WHERE THE EUGENICS PLAN HAS ALREADY SUCCEEDED -- if not for these worthless scientists who instead talk about how sad it is that our gallant glaciers no one is living on in the middle of nowhere are receding. Because obviously uninhabitable wastelands of freezing cold ice are better than clear land we might actually be able to farm or graze or live on.

We should have gigabyte per second internet connections that are able to stream HD 3d movies for everyone at will. The science was available long ago. But the government abandoned the internet to a corrupt monopoly that gets more money by limiting access to the internet than by expanding it. As a result, America is an internet desert, far behind the connection speeds of the rest of the world. We, who are supposed to be so rich, live like primitives from the stone age compared to our 'poorer' cousins in Europe and Asia. Where are the scientists pushing for universal high-speed internet access, a true human right that has a real impact on people's quality of life? They're too busy lobbying for a carbon tax.

Where are the robots? Asimov assumed we'd be living side by side with robots long ago. What is the holdup? Google has already succeeded in driving the streets of California without a driver. Watson already won at Jeopardy. What is the problem? Give us our robot companions, our Saber Marionette dolls, already. Robotics should be a simple problem. Give robots a simple ability to sense the world around it and respond to it appropriately. Something the dumbest bugs can do, even plants can do, our computer scientists have failed to program as of yet.

There isn't nearly enough research into robots. Computer power has plateaued. Instead we're concentrating on worthless things like energy efficiency. We don't need cheaper computers, we need STRONGER computers. Computers that can think as quickly and as well as humans. There is plenty of power around us -- like I said, there's enough coal, natural gas and oil in the Earth to fuel cheap power for centuries. And if scientists would ever get off their ass and stop telling us why we can't burn our abundant cheap power supply, we could have fusion power too. We don't need power-saving chips! We need POWERFUL chips.

I know there are thousands, if not millions of seriously dedicated people currently researching or funding immortality, AI, spaceflight, fusion power, etc. My complaint isn't with them. It's with the hundreds of thousands and billions of people who aren't researching these issues and aren't funding them. These are our TOP PRIORITIES. Global Warming is a meaningless distraction. Even if it occurs, it's meaningless. Even if we don't find any way to cool the Earth back down again, it's meaningless. Even if half the population of the world starves to death as a result, it's meaningless. Do you think junk like that matters once we've discovered spaceflight and colonize new worlds????????????????????????????

Science is in a ghetto. It has stopped being an innovator and has simply carved out a niche for itself to hibernate in. A junk science where no one's predictions can be falsified because they're all 100 years from now, 'climate science' and 'string theory,' is where all the scientists love to live. It is completely undemanding. It doesn't need to produce results. It doesn't need any scientist to be brave and tell the truth. It doesn't require any degree of intelligence. A scientist can go throughout their entire lives babbling nonsense and they'll never be called on it.

The solution is to cut off all funding, and all ATTENTION IN THE MEDIA AND ALL STATUS/PRESTIGE/APPLAUSE for any of their junk findings about worthless science that is not geared towards the betterment of mankind. If that fails, we can throw them in a pit and tell them they can come out when they have a working model for a wormhole generator.


Anonymous said...

First, two minor corrections:

1) Theoretical physics is far from dead: String- and M-theory have not been fully developed. Physics has also made immense progress since the 1920s: Bell's inequalities, the proposal of string theory and its derivatives, among other things. In the late 1800s, people thought physics was nearly dead––definitely not!

2) Galton did NOT discover that IQ was genetic 150 years ago, because 150 years ago there was no such thing as IQ. (While we're on the subject of IQ, it's well-known that IQ is positively correlated with social liberalism.)

Diamed said...

Technically Galton figured out intelligence was heritable. He did not have any concept of "IQ" or "Genes," but you can see how his way of thinking was exactly on target to the modern scientific version of today. He essentially nailed it.

As for string theory and such, if it has no practical application and can't even be proven/falsified, I'm loathe to call it an 'advance' in understanding. It seems more to just be a fun pastime for physicists with too much time on their hands.