Slashdot Mirror
A Conversation with Alan Lightman
An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience has an interview with Physicist, novelist, and science writer, Alan Lightman with regards to the future of science and what the next "big" discoveries might be. From the article: "Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again."
From TFA: "In the next 100 years we will have some organisms that are half human and half machine."
Half defined how? By mass? By function? There are hybrid man machines now- mechanical hearts, knees, and implanted erection pumps.
For the hubub about attacking science, is there really that much innovation being stifled? The loudest people get the media coverage. That is why, despite the fact that everyone knows they are nuts, PETA is always on the news. And why when anti-science groups go after science, they are on the news.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again.
Anti-intellectual? The US is more pro-intellectual than it has been in a very long time. It's finally cool to be smart, to an extent. If anything, the pendulum is only just beginning to swing back in our favor. It may not look like it now, but we just need to give the pendulum more time.
Here, I'll tell ya where science'll go in the next quarter-century - first, in the area of physics we'll rediscover the stick and the stone. In the area of astrology, we'll rediscover the power of the stars over our lives and our fates. In the area of biotechnology, we'll discover that we should wash our hands before we eat our latest kill; and also not to hang around the warm, softly-glowing remains of the "cities".
There. My predictions look like they have at least as much chance as Mr. Lightman's (for the record, he seems to have spent some thought on his answers, and he exhibits a certain intelligence level, but this is like me preparing a schedule for my boss showing all unplanned outtages for the next three months!).
Someone has discovered a color scheme more repulsive than slashdot's IT section! I couldn't even let the page fully load before I closed it to prevent blindness. In this one story, I think we can forgive people for not RTFA'ing.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Well, /.ed for me. But to comment on the summary:
""Generally attack against science is part of a greater attack against intellectualism in general. I think right now we're in an anti-intellectual period in the United States, but I think the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again." "
I'm not so sure about the pendulum eventually swinging back. I think American culture tends to look away from those things we are not the best at -- and since we're losing the lead in science, Americans will no longer consider scientific achievement to be a benchmark of success. Sour grapes and all that.
he fact of the matter is that intellectualism is no longer the primary route to riches, fame, or other rewards in the US. Sports figures and other entertainers dominate pop culture. Intellectuals do not get elected to national positions of leadership, nor do they often get elected to state leadership positions.
As other nations take the lead in various areas (whether it's scientific achievement, literature, or what-have-you), Americans will always find something else to feel superior and smug about. We've seen this since the dawn of mass media.
What scares me is that the American superiority/inferiority complex seems to be directing itself at world power. Sure, we're not the smarterst anymore. Nor are we the most productive. But you can bet yer bottom dollar that we could whup anyone if we devotyed the resources to it.
My end point is this -- the American inferiority complex, reinforced by the loss/coming loss of our lead in economy, science, athletics, etc, is leading to a classic bully syndrome. The wars in the Mideast we'll be fighting aren't just about oil -- they're also about proving to ourselves that we're still #1 in some fashion, that we still matter.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but the only way we're going to "swing back" is if people push really hard for it. There's no natural tendency to do so, IMO.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
Whoever said that intellectualism contributes toward strong leadership? You could say the two are somewhat exclusive -- one requires a degree of introversion and introspection while the other calls for the opposite.
Really what you need are leaders who recognize and respect the value of intellect, and who will act upon the recommendations of smart people. To a certain extent, George Bush owes his successes to the fact that he actually does do that. I don't buy that he's as much of a hayseed as he pretends to be. The reason he doesn't do what I would like to see done isn't because he's stupid; it's because he doesn't share my priorities.
Breakfast served all day!
The global internet is making the world smaller. The idea of the nation matters less and less. In the future, everyone will be brown, and smart people will lead the world in wealth, power, charity, and evil.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
free thought is bad in a nation whose government uses irational fear to control the populace. if we actually used our brains we would wake up and complain about all the liberties we are giving up.
My end point is this -- the American inferiority complex, reinforced by the loss/coming loss of our lead in economy, science, athletics, etc, is leading to a classic bully syndrome.
The economic/intellectual/productivity fear happened in the 80's. Remember how the smarter, more productive Japanese were taking our jobs and taking over the country? You had similar "Buy American" and "The Cold War is over & the Japanese won" fear mongering.
The wars in the Mideast we'll be fighting aren't just about oil -- they're also about proving to ourselves that we're still #1 in some fashion, that we still matter.
The wars in the middle east are about securing strategic resources and trade. The US's closest "ally" is Saudi Arabia, who internally hates the US, so they invade Iraq to setup a puppet government as a backup to keep the oil flowing if the Saudi Royals lose power.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but the only way we're going to "swing back" is if people push really hard for it. There's no natural tendency to do so, IMO
Throughout US history there have been periods of religious fervor like "The Great Awakenings" then the pendulum moves back. It isn't like the current sense of nationalism and spirtuality is unprecedented.
Actually, both the "assaults on global warming theories" you mention and the "global warming theories" themselves are usually quite "non-scientific", as you put it.
Most advocates of action (that is, research on global warming, reduction of carbon exhausts, or preparation of remediation strategies) are driven primarily either by political affiliations or by the belief that humans are too destructive of our planet, and that it needs to be given more respect if humans are to survive. They are just using "global warming" as their rallying cry because it has a strong scientific basis, they'd be against smokestacks and industrialism no matter what.
Most advocates of inaction are following political affilitations or believe themselves to have vested interest in things staying the same. These people are using "we don't know why the earth is warming" as their rallying cry right now, but until very recently the exact same people claimed that "global warming is a ridiculous myth unsupported by science". Like the first group, they aren't really interested in what scientists say unless it supports their base premise, that ever-increasing industrialism is a good thing for the human race.
There's an infinitesimally small number of people who have an opinion on the issue yet don't fit into the two groups I've described (as well as enormous numbers of people on both sides who are firmly but incorrectly convinced that they are in that small number).
Both sides see scientific data as a tool to further their pre-existing aims, and do not necessarily have any respect for science or scientists. Remember Ronald Reagan in 1981 publically stating, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do"? That statement is based on a selective misreading of actual science - trees do release carbon dioxide at night, and cars don't release a lot of carbon dioxide (monoxide is another matter) so if you just conveniently ignore certain gasses and the existence of the Sun, Reagan was actually right.
Your post is rather intelligent, BTW - I read a lot of "global warming" (I hate that stupid term) crap on Slashdot and it's rare to see an honest, intelligent query rather than political screeds or ignorant posturing.
That's pretty much anti-intellectualism, for my money. YMMV
"Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
-- Nick Davies
It's interesting to note that the "hot-button" issues you listed are all ones where the opponents are on the political right, while you ignore the "hot-button" issues where the opponents are on the left. Which would you rather do?
1: Walk into your local church and try to have a reasonable discussion about evolution
2: Walk into Harvard and try to have a reasonable discussion about biological gender differences
The left has as many scientific taboos as the right (race and sex with respect to genetics, genetically modified foods, pretty much anything to do with economics when human lives are factored into the equation, etc). Both sides ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
It just bothers me somehow that the way people instinctively view the human-machine neural interface is in terms of input, of adding senses. I mean, I understand that prosthetic sensory organs are a pressing matter. However, I have a sneaking suspician that that's only part of the reason. Why aren't people more psyched about having the ability to control machines more or less directly? Why in a world of bluescreens would they have no fear about opening a channel directly into their mind? I think it's cultural. Our culture views the machine as something providing information. We have a passive mentality. It's a sad commentary on our nature. Were I to take such things to their fictional extremes I'd go so far as to say it bodes badly for the end result of machine/man integration -- we'll trend towards becoming the peripheral device, not the CPU.
Someone had to do it.