There are 10 planetary boundaries, some of which have already been breached. It is the climate change, the rate of loss of biological diversity, nitrogen cycle, weakening of the ozone layer, ocean acidity, lack of drinking water, intensive use of soil, growth of aerosols in the atmosphere, chemical pollution.
Can science and technology save the world?
Science and Technology have been making concerted efforts aimed at finding lasting solutions to pollution. In the atmosphere, air pollutants from various sources abound viz, carbon emissions, aerosols, biodegraders and etc.
Reduction/ elimination of gas flaring is an awesome measure against carbon emissions. Going green is also a wonderful scientific innovation aimed at pollution reduction.
Save is a bit of a strong word! I would say they can interchange some possible answers and show many paths, bad and good ones. But the ideal choice would come along human historical decision-making processes!
>"Can science and technology save the world?"
There are two sub-questions here. First, Can science and technology save humankind? And secondly, would the world be better without humankind if humanity killed itself?
>"Can science and technology save humankind?" - The answer is No. One example is enough. Science and technology could not undo knowledge about nuclear arms and the existence of those arms, and the means of their delivery in a world. And nuclear war could wipe out humankind.
>"would the world be better without humankind if humanity killed itself?" - Nobody knows. But it is possible. Just look at the dangers humankind created for the planet. One example, like a potential nuclear disaster, is enough.
It's strange if Victor could not see the connect between science and technology with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are scientific inventions of mass destruction no doubt. However, we must not be unmindful of anti nuclear weapons, also made manifest by science and technology to counter nuclear disaster. Accepted that science and technology has created unimaginable environmental problems, it (science and technology,) remains the only hope if humanity can attempt at righting those man made
environmental woes.
Whether science and technology can save the world will become clear in a few decades, when we will know whether a global climate catastrophe has been avoided by what remains to be done in terms of carrying out a pro-environmental and pro-climate transformation of the classic growth brown linear economy of excess to a sustainable green zero-carbon growth and closed loop economy. It is to be hoped that this will happen, that through science and new green technologies and eco-innovations we will build a world without greenhouse gas emissions, halt the progressive process of global warming, prevent the occurrence of a global climate catastrophe and save the world.
Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Spirituality is unexplored science.
Nature is 90% more capable than human intelligence and science.
So, science cannot save the world.
Nature when gets imbalanced does create calamities to balance back.
Man made hazards are yet highly tolerated by nature.
Spirituality can yet save the world but number of people practicing spirituality aren't enough .
The simple answer is: "Fully independent, morally clean, absolutely honest, and scientifically deep science can save the world easily by interfering with it as little as possible. The question is where is such science?"
There are existing two proverbs related to this fundamental question in the Czech language. The first one. An apprentice is telling to his master: "Master, what to do? I am cutting this board again and again, and it is still short."
The second one: "The way into the hell is paved by good intentions."
The science is paid by industry, which interest is only and only profit. How do we want to expect from science, under such circumstances, to solve any problem it caused under such guidance.
It is a kind of the problem called: Head 22, isn't it? Another proverb: "Carps will never release water from their own pond."
The difficulty with science and technology is that it is serving to wrong goals, or better to say to wrong tiny groups of people. We see this tendency across all disciplines. It seems to be that the only bearers of true, honest, and helpful science are independent researchers and researchers from institutions, which give the absolute freedom to researchers, there are existing a few such institutions and states support them.
Currently, it is so easy to demonetize any research when it doesn't fit the official narrative. This is even more true, when the research starts to demonstrate some faulty results or approaches of the official narrative. Currently, we are witnessing such behavior within cosmology, particle physics, climatology, medicine, natural sciences, and virtually within all scientific fields.
The only way out is independent researchers, enabling them to do their research, and allow them to publish their independent, not confirming the official narrative research without any obstacles.
Hopefully, there are clever, rich benefactors who care about the future of the humanity and will support independent researchers who are telling us the way out of this very dangerous situation, which humanity created to itself, the Nature, and the whole Mother Earth in the first place.
Let us pray for humanity that it will realize the dangers it is facing now, take a step or more back, and redefine its main purpose of its existence. 🙏
I think the answer to the question “can science…” is yes. I also think that many humans (regular people and leaders) do not have the will.
Human systems have brought the earth to the current state of near-collapse, with multiple environmental crises, human inequality, and immense human and animal suffering. What we need is transformative change - a deep and systemic change which addresses the underlying drivers and root causes of our many interconnected problems (including lack of human values and ethics, lack of empathy, care and justice; replaced by greed, materialism and consumerism). We are in real trouble if we begin to think that we can carry on with business as usual because science and technology will provide a silver bullet. That doesn't mean that there are not some positive scientific and technological advances that will be helpful (i would, for example, include cellular meat and seafood in this category), but far more is needed if we are not going to simply overlay further problems in the future - making a humane and sustainable future an impossibility.
Yes and no .
1. Yes, if science and technology are geared towards harmless use and modifications of creation for human improvement.
2. No , if Science are technology engage in the current reckless modifications of creation without regard for environmental and social consequences.
Science and technology themselves are supposed to facilitate in
the solution of the problems of mankind.
They are knowledge and skills given as gifts to mankind.
The nature of their application is the problem.
No, science cannot "save the world".
People can save the world. People may use political science (Wuhan bioweapon lab) to further evil, or people may risk using science (VAERS reports, data, analysis) to push back against evil.
People used science to create the atomic bomb, energy magnetic pulse weapons, biased algorithms to censor free speech, programmable digital currency that can be shut off by corrupt central banks, etc.
Science is observation.
Action is what is needed. Not observation. Science postulates about the past, as if it were real (20,000,000 years ago).
Such fallacy and delusional juxtaposition diminishes the true value of science.
"Science" is no longer pure analytics, but it is politicized information manipulation that is abused to rationalize actions, and as much as it can be used for good, don't be fooled... it can destroy the world when militarized and weaponized.
No.
Science itself is neutral: it depends on who operates and by whom and how they use it.
Without faith, morality and transparency science and technology have not a sufficient impact to save the world. It is really an open question to mankind why technologies are developing much faster than humanitarian, social matters.
Science and Technology will not come with absolute safety for the world or mankind.
Science and Technology has brought us creative destruction.
For every invention brought about two or more problems for another invention(s) and the cycle continues till tomorrow. The invention of refrigerants,internal combustion engines have serious impact on our environment...
Although we are living in a science & technology-based civilization***, dear Dragoljub Šarović , am in line with Gioacchino de Candia
Rational and ethical systems of morality, time-tested by evolutionary procedures, are still needed to cope with existential questions and tensions of how to apply our growing potential of production vs. destruction.
———-—
***
https://www.goconqr.com/mindmap/38481767/new-learning-ontology-circuit
It ought to but state actors keep manipulating scientists all over the world on climatic changes
ChatGPT is using truly groundbreaking AI technology. I am pretty amazed how wisely it was tackling this important question:
"Science and technology have the potential to make significant contributions towards solving some of the world's most pressing challenges, such as climate change, poverty, and access to healthcare. Scientific research has led to advancements in renewable energy, efficient agriculture, and disease prevention and treatment. Technology has also played a major role in connecting people around the world, and providing access to information and resources.
However, it's important to note that science and technology are not a panacea and it's necessary to address the root causes of problems, such as economic inequality, lack of education and political instability. Also, science and technology alone can't solve all of the world's problems, as most of them are complex and intertwined. Moreover, there is a risk of unintended consequences and ethics dilemmas that can arise from the application of certain technologies.
In short, science and technology can certainly be powerful tools to help address some of the world's problems, but they are not a solution on their own. They need to be used in conjunction with other efforts, such as policy changes and social innovation, to have a real impact."
Have you tried ChatGTP?
Christer Sundqvist
PhD, Helsinki, Finland
Earth’s protective ozone layer is slowly but noticeably healing at a pace that would fully mend the hole over Antarctica in about 43 years, a new United Nations report says.
A once-every-four-years scientific assessment found recovery in progress, more than 35 years after every nation in the world agreed to stop producing chemicals that chomp on the layer of ozone in Earth’s atmosphere that shields the planet from harmful radiation linked to skin cancer, cataracts and crop damage...
https://apnews.com/article/science-health-climate-and-environment-united-nations-us-news-83794d6e5ae6c4469b60effb185d1509
@Prof Ljubmir Jacic, thank you for your input. This is indeed a welcome development.
Was there provision to ensure that every nation imust comply strictly with the ozone reduction agreement ?
This is where the human factor aspect of scientists nd technologists comes into play.
The ultimate authority that can save the world is the ONE that created it.
Dear Rk Naresh , I have asked you so many times to bring relevant sources to your answers (copy/paste) in order to avoid plagiarism and to enrich your contribution. You do not do it yet!!!
In this answer, you have copied from some sources, I do bring one of them:
https://directresearchpublisher.org/drjsses/files/2016/12/Anaeto-et-al1.pdf
No, only a change within the social symbol system can save the world.
Lou
Science is 'basic' & Technology is 'application of science'. The natural science, which is not intervened by us, can save the world. Science is Good but Technology is .......
Dragoljub Šarović I want to believe so, that indeed science and technology applied from the context of research and innovation can save the world in the context of humanity by lowering the cost of living . Its not far fetched that creative disruptive technology(ICT) through research and innovations is getting rid of tasks that in the past were too labor intensive especially in areas of computation, cashiering and quality control that required many hands. Ensuing researched ICT solutions have significantly lowered the cost of production, increasing efficiency , quality and in effect impacting positively towards lowering the cost of living (read the amount of goods and services available in the given economy) . To this extent therefore I see science and technology playing acritical role in saving the world by lowering the cost of living.
To Vadim,
Can people save the world from themselves by developing technology?
Kind regards.
To Mr.Troszak,
Thank you for very useful and instructive answers.
Kind regards.
Climate ‘teleconnections’ may link droughts and fires across continents
New research could help countries forecast and collaborate to deal with dry spells and fires..
The wildfire scars around the world are connected to these climate teleconnections, and that’s very useful, Stevenson says. “Studies like this can help us prepare how we might go about constructing larger scale international plans to deal with events that affect multiple places at once.”
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/climate-teleconnections-droughts-fires?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=latest-newsletter-v2
.... but they can definitely destroy, (!!!)
it depends on whose hands it is ...
Scientists, if you communicate only with people at your own level of expertise, how will you recruit the best and brightest, engage the public and change the world?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/being-elitist-about-scicomms-damages-science?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial-daily&spMailingID=24626082&spUserID=MTAxNzcwNzE4MTk2NAS2&spJobID=2190293882&spReportId=MjE5MDI5Mzg4MgS2
Maybe. It helps to understand the world and with an open mind we may scrutinize the "results". Definitely science debunks!
We know a lot of the bad effects of sugar, radiation, television, non-spirituality and many more but our supermarkets are filled up with junk, our children have no space for self-realisation, we think that the reduce of trees to build wind turbindes is better for climate etc...
For saving the world only science & technology remain the basic essence as we are ignoring human beings who also remain creator for offering timely environment needed for creating peace .
This is my personal opinion
Surprising Creatures Lurk in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
In the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, plastic creates strange communities that bring coastal and open-ocean animals together...
It’s another warning call for us that we definitely need to take dramatic, drastic steps to reduce the amount of plastic litter that goes into the ocean. When it’s in the open ocean, it’s too late....
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surprising-creatures-lurk-in-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch/
Dragoljub Šarović
No,
1. Because there are positive and negative actions from the same platform.
For example, nuclear power is used for power generation, it is positive and nuclear power has a high risk of exploration and radiation, which is a risk for living beings, which is negative
2. Many states are not working for the sustainability of the world. Say mega power stated with nuclear arms always think their survivability, not others.
“Scientists should embrace their humanity rather than pretending that they are a bunch of automatons who instantly reach perfectly objective conclusions.”
We should move past ‘trust the science’ and embrace ‘trust the scientific process’ — including the complexities of how scientific consensus is reached — argues Science editor-in-chief H. Holden Thorp...
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/it-matters-who-does-science
Some companies are listed as having extraordinary potential to develop products and technologies that will change the way we live and work...
The chemical industry is one of the world’s biggest polluters, generating more than 2 billion tonnes of carbon emissions each year. US photocatalysis company New Iridium, which has been longlisted for the prize, uses light, instead of high temperatures, to activate chemical reactions — a process familiar from the natural world as photosynthesis. The approach cuts both energy requirements and carbon emissions compared with the usual methods. It also uses waste CO2 as a resource, transforming it into the building blocks of plastics and other products, such as paint...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01647-0
On World Ocean Day, physicist and oceanographer Helen Czerski argues that we must be wary of efforts to exploit the ocean to help achieve our land-based goals — by sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, for example, or mining minerals from the sea floor. “You can’t ‘just’ fertilise the ocean, or change its alkalinity, or park huge new farms there, or dump billions of tonnes of biomass into the deep sea without affecting the existing ocean physics, chemistry and biology,” she writes. She argues for a view of the ocean as a dynamic, intricately structured engine that can be utilized only with great sensitivity. “You can’t start from the assumption that the ocean isn’t doing anything of value down there already.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/04/why-we-need-to-respect-earths-last-great-wilderness-the-ocean
Dragoljub Šarović , l absolutely agree with this assertion . The world is humanity and its this humanity that rides on science and technology to thrive and spur development in all aspects of universal development.
Phil Geis, its my contention that we could having inferences to two different things and perspectives in this discussion, which is allowed and an aspect liberty of mind. Thanks.
No, transformation is a natural phenomena of the universe, destruction is one kind of transformation.What will do scientists for eruption of volcano? What about tsunami? Science also have much limitations to resilience of climate change
Perhaps folks might see the absurdity of the OP's original question.
The silliness of what were called "planetary boundaries" - dynamics that mean have no "boundary" metrics that the planet has existed when none effectively existed. nothing to the world that has existed.
It's the question of a "risk manager" praying for /imagining risks to manage.
“Can science and technology save the world?”
- to answer scientifically to this question it is necessary before to understand – what is “world”? , and since in the question that isn’t explained, the question indeed looks as rather strange: if “world” is the humans’ environment, i.e. whole Matter or even the planet “Earth”, then it has quite simple answer – for “world”, which is in this case fundamentally only a material system, it is completely all the same – what anything physical, chemical, etc. happens on the planet.
But seems “world” in the question relates to humanity, for which that above isn’t all the same, however at that it is necessary to understand – what are “human”, “humanity”, and again – what is human’s environment;
- while such understanding is fundamentally impossible in mainstream philosophy and sciences since in the mainstream – and for practically all humans - all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- and humans/humanity really exists and act practically purely instinctively – as all other living beings on Earth exist and act; having really no any understanding what they are themselves, and what is where they live.
The understanding above can be only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions above are scientifically defined, what is possible, and is done, only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- including, besides the answering to the post’s questions above, the paper contains some concrete points that really relate to the thread question; in this case it is useful to read also the SS post 7 days ago now in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_do_you_think_about_artificial_intelligence#view=647d37dcc7bb89bbc1022864/161
If quite briefly: both, science and technology, can both- save and destruct - “the world”, all that is determined by humans themselves, if they will continue to exist and act as do that now – really as bacteria colonies in a Petri dish, while Earth is rather small dish,
- and real humans’ development can be without too much problems only provided that humans will understand that their consciousnesses aims and needs are far away from their aims and needs now.
Cheers
The world’s plan to make humanity sustainable is failing. Science can do more to save it
There is no planet B, and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are heading for the rocks. Researchers around the world must do their bit to change that...
Implicit — and to a degree explicit — in all this is changing how science itself is done. The report argues that the actions that steer the world towards a sustainable path must be rooted in science that is multidisciplinary, equitable and inclusive, openly shared and widely trusted, and “socially robust” — in short, responsive to social context and social needs. As the authors acknowledge, for that to happen, global science needs to evolve. Knowledge needs to be more accessible than it is at present, and the production of that knowledge needs to be more open, too, recognizing, for example, the value of Indigenous and local knowledge to sustainable innovation...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01989-9
Phil Geis offer nothing but criticism, both here and in other discussion rooms...
Ljubomir offers nothing but ignorant BS. His feelings are hurt when corrected - an easy task as he knows nothing of science and operates by cut and paste often from questionable sources.
You'll not see anything from Ljubomir to technical questions as he has nothing to offer in that regard.
I was going to add about bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
If anything is going to save the world, yes, it will be science and technology, but action must be thought through and carried out with the best possible motive.
But so much has taken place - yes - by science and technology that have had a negative impact on the world, now mankind should unite to save the world. Otherwise, it will be too late.
International scientific collaboration is at the heart of innovative solutions with the potential for worldwide impact. Scientific mobilisation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a great example. But until now, sustainability science for has not been given the opportunity and resources to help advance long-term sustainable development at scale. To rise to this challenge in the face of existential risks to humanity and the planet, the International Science Council (ISC) convened the Global Commission on Science Missions for Sustainability in December 2021. The Commission has the mandate to find new ways to support and carry out mission science that would significantly accelerate humanity’s progress on the path towards sustainability: inclusive, intergenerational wellbeing of both people and our planetary life support systems...
https://council.science/publications/a-model-for-implementing-mission-science-for-sustainability/
Mission-led science is that new mechanism. The Commission recognizes that while the new mechanism suggested is urgently needed, sustainability science must be strongly anchored in advancing novel theories, methods, and fundamental new concepts such as Earth justice, safe and just earth system boundaries and new legal frameworks and governance concepts like planetary stewardship. This will require continued investments in basic, social, and natural sciences, both as disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches and with a focus on ensuring practical outcomes...
https://council.science/publications/flipping-the-science-model/
Phil Geis, how could you comment this two documents which were written by 35 experts in total, without reading (15+35 pages)!!!? Your acting is harmful in many discussion rooms, not only here. You do not deserve more words. Communication to you has no value at all!
Nobel prize winner Giorgio Parisi’s new book, “In a Flight of Starlings,” makes the case that science’s struggle to understand and master the universe’s complexity, and to communicate it to an ever-more skeptical public, holds the key to humanity’s future well-being. But Parisi is nothing if not optimistic...
https://undark.org/2023/08/11/book-review-a-simple-memoir-in-praise-of-complex-science/
Ljubomir
Opinions, fiction and politics written by anyone remain opinion fiction and politics.
I post and respond to comments as a scientist. Your perspective is clearly that of a gullible environmentalist swallowing anything that is published and consider any critical analysis "dangerous" heresy.
My suggestion to you - develop the useful capability of critical thinking. This will greatly improve the vlaue of your posts. Perhaps you might respond to technical comments but I realize you are simple posting what you've read.
To the point - science generally does not "struggle"to communicate to the public - skeptical or not. Science communicates to itself - communication to the public is typically via ignorant and agenda drive politicians ergo the skeptical public.
I find this comment very valuable! Fine predictions!
Solving the big computing problems in the twenty-first century
Substantial improvements in computing energy efficiency, by up to ten orders of magnitude, will be required to solve major computing problems — such as planetary-scale weather modelling, real-time, brain-scale modelling and human evolutionary simulation — by the end of this century...
An interesting approach to solution (one out of three proposed):
The second option which is obvious but challenging — is to increase global energy production by harnessing green or highly efficient energy sources (such as nuclear fusion), leading to lower energy and infrastructure costs. This would, of course, have clear societal value, as well as an impact on computing. Such lowered costs could also motivate the exploration of training larger models...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-023-00985-1.epdf?sharing_token=HV-mx9lx6stHotA82lc4sdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PMmrM-xm6tK6v5XdrULfAEzbanymthH0rTp0j9PCrcWNKRl_f4-9Xx3p3E-tzBkaTT-r6m0Wx0oiDDLSmnukCBi2COqxIle8tLUjafvoGy0xLLy9wzHwaU93vg3-5rGMU%3D
Save the world from what?
Tyranny, fake fiat "currency", intentional poverty by centralized governments, human nature, sin, corruption?
No, not unless you factor in the technokogy of the spirit, the soul, the existence and purpose of mankind.
The notion that the world is imperfect and can be "saved" by one's ego and exploration minimizes the grand scale of God's creation to being a mere existence of biochemical, electromagnetical, random fluidity of unrelated energies that have no meaning, purpose or intentionality.
The question begs an alternative question-
Can humanity be saved from itself?
Kenneth Loebel asked: "Save the world from what?"
In introductory of this research question Dragoljub Šarović has mentioned: "There are 10 planetary boundaries, some of which have already been breached. It is the climate change, the rate of loss of biological diversity, nitrogen cycle, weakening of the ozone layer, ocean acidity, lack of drinking water, intensive use of soil, growth of aerosols in the atmosphere, chemical pollution."
Of course, there are other big problems which should be taken into account, as you have mentioned, like corruption, tyranny...
I do like your alternative question: "Can humanity be saved from itself?"
@Ljubomir Jacić Thank you for pointing that out. I apologize for reacting to the headline and not having recognized the sub-text that you pointed out.
I am guilty of having knee-jerk reactions periodically, and the headline triggered such a reaction, primarily due to recent discoveries of how military groups are abusibg technology onto unsuspecting citizens, for the interests of military, not necessarily for humanity.
Here is an example of one such organization.
https://www.darpa.mil/program/our-research/darpa-and-the-brain-initiative
Can science and technology save the world? No, under the current circumstances, as others pointed out. Just take a look around the world. Poverty, wars, corruption and not only.
There's no problem with nature. The problem is with central banks and corporations creating falsified reports, tainting science and laundering money to "try to fix nature".
Advances for technology may make sense, but there is no problem with carbon emissions or with nature. Science simply quantify observation, but politics and fraud destroy humanity
This 10 people shaped science in 2023.
"The Nature’s 10 list explores key developments in science over the past year and some of the individuals who helped to make amazing discoveries and bring attention to crucial issues. It is not an award or a ranking, but a selection compiled by Nature’s editors to highlight the year’s most compelling stories.
Since its inception more than a decade ago, Nature’s 10 has highlighted the influence of 10 people within the world of science. We are continuing with that tradition in 2023 and are adding to it by including a non-person – an acknowledgement of the role that artificial intelligence designed to mimic human language is having in the development and progress of science..."
https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-023-03919-1/index.html
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts