The ugly truth of science

[malignd at aol.com]

Believe me, not everyone on this list has his (her) mind made up.  AW 's argument is scattershot nonsense, silly and not worth responding to.



-----Original Message-----
From: JZ Stafura <jzstafura at gmail.com>
To: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: The ugly truth of science


Hi all,

  Been a lurker on this list for a long time, haven't felt like I've had the 
time to contribute to the list, given the fine minds here. While I've enjoyed 
the discussions, debates, and thoughts for years now, the latest anti-science 
talk sounds more like a Michelle Bachman speech than the intelligence I'm used 
to on this list. As a junior scientist (who just must be bought and sold by the 
powers that be - those evil folks who want to find ways to help children with 
language impairments through non-pharmacological instructional techniques - 
gasp!), the level of discourse on science here has been depressing, 
small-minded, and reveals how little my 'kind' are thought of here. Yes, 
scientists are aware of the dangers of science, most of them are like me, 
curious and amazed at the world around us - and not stupid enough to take money 
to study things just because the money is there. It sounds like everyone on this 
list has there mind made up, but what if scientist lumped all literature 
students in the same pile (I also have a lit degree) - we could say something 
like lit theory has offered nothing new for over 50 years, which is why the 
programs are drying up - it isn't the worlds fault, it's yours. I don't believe 
this at all, but it is as accurate a description of humanities as the 
descriptions of science have been on this list over the last month or so.

Take it or leave it, I don't mind, and I'll always enjoy reading what the 
brilliant folks on this list have to say.

Joe 

Joseph Z. Stafura
U. Pitt
iPhone (apologies for the brevity and mistakes)

On Jun 15, 2013, at 11:16 AM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> Look into a Astro-Biology textbook, or into an Astronomy Webpage, and you will 
see beautiful artwork. Artistic simulations of what the data from distant space 
probes fed into computers is adding up to. With the space probe, the computer, 
we can build entire worlds, above and beyond the confining fact of nature, and 
these built worlds are nothing next to the transformation wrought by science and 
technology, which has extended our bodies to manipulate and change the world to 
fulfill its very own, often evil and cruel plans for it and its unwitting 
inhabitants. Much as Science/Technic claims to educate and warn, Science and 
Technology has shown how to destroy before we understand. In P we have several 
unmistakable examples. We have the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 
This, of course, is the Science/technology destruction that continues, even 
after we exit the Theatre/Theater to hover above our heads in equations we can't 
understand, but in common sense parlance, it's the fucking bomb, and Science and 
Technology is only a hindrance to our grasping the sphincter-tightening reality.   
Science/Technology has altered what is to be a human by giving the species the 
capacity to totally denude our Earth with war that escalates to madness and 
chaos. Remember WWII? madness. Chaos. GR is a reminder and a warning. Isn't it? 
Even if the anti-bomb folk are now pro-bomb for everyone folk, even Iran and N 
Korea have a right to the bomb, no? Even if the MAD men are now Peace Men who 
want to prevent proliferation while maintaining a huge advantage, even if the 
threat keeps the peace or whatever...we have been transformed by the bomb.
>  
> McCarthy does delve into this, BYW. _The Road_ is set after some kind of 
holocaust that burns the Earth to a crisp.
>  
>  In any event, the Earth, the Planet Earth no longer seems a home that we can 
live on forever. Science played god, and so we poor preterit must accept a home, 
a garden that is not eternal, but has an end to it.
>  
> The Second Coming of Science-Technic is Modernity without Restraint.
>  
>  
> But don't worry poor fellow, Science-Technology will make you immortal, ship 
your frozen head to a new planet or to a space station. The limitations of 
Science and Technology, once we see that it has extended our capacity to Destroy 
Earth and holds out space stations and frozen heads as compensation, are clear 
enough to a common thinker who reads and thinks, and who knows it's OK to be a 
reader and thinker even if this opens one to accusations of Luddism.
>  
> Science and Technology is , of course, valuable. We are not going to abandon 
it. But we need to understand how Science-Technology has altered the Earth to 
make it yield more to satisfy immediate wants, and in the process has destroyed 
its beauty, what took Earth with no plan at all, billions of years to create, 
Science-Technology has destroyed in a few thousand years. But not to worry, 
Science-Technology has photographs and beauty too. The pink sky over the 
industrial motherboard is sublime!
>  
> Extreme examples? Yes. But there they are. The Bomb. Man-made global warning 
or whatever term you prefer.
> Extreme examples made weak arguments. But consider how powerful they are. A 
Paradox is useful. Contradictions are often powerful. Common sense is often more 
powerful than logic. A Carpenter is often more important than an 
Astro-Biologist.
>  
> So how close to the bleeding edge do we need to go? Do we need to force our 
Scientists to pull a trigger and blow a child's head off? Would that bleed into 
his/her mind deep enough and disturb the comfort he/she takes in mouse-clicking 
a village to dust? Do we need to strap a Scientist to a Drone so he/she can see 
what he/she has done? Are mediated Deaths an orgasm in the chamber of the white 
visitation?
>  
> The specifics are not  important. Technology and Science now destroy much of 
the beauty in the world that we don't yet  understand. It then sets its own 
beauty before us. Science-Technology is obviously misguided. The German Sickness 
is an epidemic in its fields.
>  
>  
> More dangerous is the fact that the Prince must always keep his Military 
Industrial Complex on the Bleeding Edge.
>  
> Will Obama move drones into Syria? He has Patriots in Turkey.
>  
> What are we poor subject to do? Is it OK to read like a Luddite?
>  
> For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be 
despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to 
guard himself, as is shown later on. Because there is nothing proportionate 
between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed 
should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man 
should be secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain 
and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together. 
And therefore a prince who does not understand the art of war, over and above 
the other misfortunes already mentioned, cannot be respected by his soldiers, 
nor can he rely on them. He ought never, therefore, to have out of his thoughts 
this subject of war, and in peace he should addict himself more to its exercise 
than in war; this he can do in two ways, the one by action, the other by study.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130615/28b768b8/attachment.html>