Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

The Glyphawards is today ...

https://www.generations-futures.fr/actu ... yphawards/

[Exnihiloest]

Thank you for the definition of scientism this said it is not very convincing ....

Nothing suprising. As Dr. House said, "If one could reason with believers, there would be no believers."

As far as I had noted techno-scientismSo thank you not to truncate is not it!
Scientism is a conception of the world that considers the primacy of experimental science over other forms of knowledge. It is a self-respecting position, but it can be widely questioned.

Le techno-scientism is a neologism that denotes a faith in technology as a means for humanity to meet its material needs, are progress and are development in an emancipatory logic(synonymous:cornucopian).
This is a vision that is characterized by taking strong positions considering that nature is a perfectible thing to be improved by relegating the protection of the wilderness to a subsidiary question, we logically find many techno-scientist thinkers in the field of transhumanism or biotechnology (ex de Ray Kurzweil ou Craig Venter ).

In fact it becomes more and more clear to me that scientism (techno or not) is today simply a catch-all expression to reject the proposed scientific solutions, and their promoters with it, when they do not correspond to the ideology. But on the contrary, the smallest scientific study like the one (does not seek, it does not exist) which would give all the evidence that glyphosate would be carcinogenic or that Siberia will be tropical at the end of the century, is brandished without a critical mind as if science thus guaranteed by its predictions a better future while avoiding the worst. Those who believe "hard as iron" in anthropogenic warming and in anti-CO2 solutions as a panacea, are scientists. Scientists are not necessarily where you think they are.

In the nineteenth century, and for much of the nineteenth century, people had a high opinion of science, and imagined that it would bring them by its techniques, a better life. Obviously it was a mistake, and really few 19ème scientists thought that.
This sublimation of science by people who knew nothing about it, has the effect, today they have understood their error, a reaction and / or a phobia. Science is dangerous, atomic bomb, asbestos, mad cow, contaminated blood and patati and patata, even electromagnetic waves! We no longer see the benefits that come from it.
Science is reproached with the fact that the hopes placed on it were not kept when these hopes were in vain from the beginning and that the mistake was to put them there!

Science does not serve a better life in the absolute, it is a knowledge that can be used to solve concrete material problems, not the pain of living or the existential questions that we will always have.
If one can draw a cross on the permanent happiness (the absence of misfortune making this notion absurd), on the other hand it is the hope that makes the happiness as well as its realization, it is fleeting, and there the science has its place. Then new problems appear but we have advanced, we do not know where and that is the interest, rather than to remain without hope to reproduce the life that our parents had and to make that of our children forever. Who said sustainable? He wants hell, that one.

To end with an optimistic note, death is ch ... everyone. This is a specific concrete problem that it would be good to solve to be, as Woody Allen said, a little less stressed in life. And that's an understatement. Thank you for quoting Kurzweil on this.

[sen-no-sen]

Those who believe "hard as iron" in anthropogenic warming and in anti-CO2 solutions as a panacea, are scientists. Scientists are not necessarily where you think they are.

Scientism does not belong to one particular camp, and there is no reason for it to be the case.
On the other hand there is a propensity to climate-skepticism among the old techno-scientists. However in the "younger" branch and probably by opportunity one can quite find reasoning in agreement with the position main stream .
For example, global warming could be thwarted by geoengineering (according to engineers working on the subject as David KeithIn this way, in the context of a world dominated by technology, this kind of climate change would serve the interest well.
Not me the idea to describe in depth the psychology of techno-scientist, but it appears that their conception of the world lies on the principle of a leap forward in technology, and is characterized by a messianic desire of the Promethean type.

To end with an optimistic note, death is ch ... everyone. This is a specific concrete problem that it would be good to solve to be, as Woody Allen said, a little less stressed in life. And that's an understatement. Thank you for quoting Kurzweil on this.

What did I say? Messianic and Promethean, it is well confirmed in your message!

[Janic]

In the nineteenth century, and for much of the nineteenth century, people had a high opinion of science, and imagined that it would bring them by its techniques, a better life. Obviously it was a mistake, and really few 19ème scientists thought that.

Do not confuse science with the opinions of scientists who are often too specialized to get an overview. But this way of seeing Science has not disappeared and it is there that the scientism in question is manifested, which is more of the order of the affective, the culture and the behavioral habits than of a real knowledge.

This sublimation of science by people who knew nothing about ithas the effect, today that they understood their error, a reaction and / or a phobia.

It is not really a question of the sublimation of science (which has a real knowledge of what science can really be), but of the opinions given by scientists, and only, and not all, the famous consensus that is only the meeting of some opinions who want to impose themselves on those who are not of their opinion.

Science is dangerous, atomic bomb, asbestos, mad cow, contaminated blood and patati and patata, even electromagnetic waves! We no longer see the benefits that come from it.

Science, in itself, is not dangerous, since it is only an abstraction of the spirit where we say science, as we say God or truth.
On the other hand, the way in which any knowledge will be used (generally on an industrial and thus economic level) will play a major role in the real world, the one that concerns each individual in his daily life and, yes, this "science" in question can be dangerous by the use made of it.
Now are the supposed advantages superior to their disadvantages? For example the atom exists naturally and, in itself, to have knowledge of it is not dramatic, but to concentrate this product to make a means of mass destruction, I doubt that anyone will find advantages.
When a person is diagnosed with cancer and because (this "science" is supposed to offer only this solution, rejecting any other possibility) the person is butchered to remove one or two breasts. put an artificial anus, irradiate "to death" and stuff it with highly toxic chemicals (useless most of the time!) we can say, rightly, that this science in question becomes dangerous in its application.
Finally, the human is "naturally" driven to believe in miracles (scientific or otherwise) that can calm his anxieties about insecurity, illness, death, suffering, etc ... and he there will always be gurus, official or not, to propose his dogmatic solution pseudo scientific (exple the compulsory vaccination or not) and reassure face these fears.

Science is reproached with the fact that the hopes placed on it were not kept when these hopes were in vain from the beginning and that the mistake was to put them there!

This is partly true, but these hopes in question have no other propositions than these dangerous "sciences". Cancer, despite the efforts made to eradicate it (scientific superstitions in question) persists in a siding and will not find a real solution in this chosen path and that continues, unfortunately, with 1 dead on two.

Science does not serve a better life in the absolute, it is a knowledge that can be used to solve concrete material problems, not the pain of living or the existential questions that we will always have.

Both are linked! Between a financially and materially comfortable situation and being unemployed, homeless, under-nourished or sick, bad living is intimately linked. If there are more and more suicides in materially comfortable occupations, it is also because this aspect is not the most important in life.

[Exnihiloest]

...
On the other hand, there is a propensity for climate-skepticism among the old techno-scientists.

It's your interpretation, biased.
I see a propensity to climate-realism in old monkeys who want to learn to wince and who have seen others, unlike climate gobbler.

[sen-no-sen]

...
On the other hand, there is a propensity for climate-skepticism among the old techno-scientists.

It's your interpretation, biased.
I see a propensity to climate-realism in old monkeys who want to learn to wince and who have seen others, unlike climate gobbler.

It's even more partial ...
But you still do not answer the fund, what should you do to reduce the current ecocide?

[Ahmed]

I understood that the current ecocide was either negligible (already seen!), Or beneficial: we eradicate all small (and large) animals not necessarily very successful and then can at will redo more consistent with our aspirations and to our narcissism ...

[izentrop]

To refocus a little

[Exnihiloest]

It's even more partial ...
But you still do not answer the fund, what should you do to reduce the current ecocide?

We do not discuss tastes and colors. I only answer to refutable arguments, the others are questions of faith.

[Exnihiloest]

To refocus a little

Here is a journalist doing his job. Where we see that the analyzed file was a pure product of manipulative militants.
When I say that we must always go back to the sources ...