Where are we going, how can we change?

an investigation into the motivations for human action
as applicable to a sustainable future

The Role of Science

We do not ask for what useful purpose the birds do sing, for song is their pleasure since they were created for singing. Similarly, we ought not to ask why the human mind troubles to fathom the secrets of the heavens….The diversity of the phenomena of Nature is so great, and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich, precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment.

Johannes Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum

Science is now a difficult word. The connotation of the word has corrupted its actual meaning, similar to what happened to the term ‘communism’. The term science conjures up the vision of a technician in a white lab coat with a test tube. The belief in this person and his ability to protect the human race from future suffering is not different than beliefs in the supernatural. The fanatic believer in science and the religious zealot are cut from the same cloth. Both believe that the human being is chosen to be the benefactor of assured positive outcomes. The positive outcomes are guaranteed, not due to any personal input, but based on the believed abilities of some outside force working on one’s behalf. This conclusion is based on the application of faith. Faith can be one of the most destructive concepts of belief for human beings when misapplied. The same type of faith, which has been spoken of, in reference to religion, is now being applied increasingly to the fields of science. Faith, by its nature, can not be proven by evidence and is not supported by logical application of cause and effect reasoning. This leads one down the path of pseudo-science.

True science, on the other hand, relies solely on quantifiable evidence, or logical explanation of proof, to support an explanation of natural phenomena. When quantifiable evidence is lacking, the scientific hypothesis is of no merit. Evidence may be supplied in mathematical logic, such as in the case of Relativity, prior to its support from measurable evidence, or in a mathematical proof. However, science only becomes useful when it can be applied and can predict outcomes with certainty. If evidence shows that a scientific postulation has no better than a chance probability to predict outcomes, it is of no value and a better explanation will be sought out. There are, of course, sciences such as Biology which historically were not applied to prediction-making but were more explanatory in their endeavors. This has changed with application to genetics, fields of animal behavior, and knowledge of the interdependence and evolutionary connectedness of life forms. However, even prior to finding a useful application, science is worthy of investigation. For example, the theory of Evolution which originally had no practical purpose was useful. It was shown to be a better explanation than what was previously offered.

The using of evidence, that can be commonly-sensed, is effectively used to support or disprove a scientific theory. The theory that the world was flat and the center of the universe could be shown to be incorrect by careful observation and application of logic. However, many still did not accept a theory that the Earth is spherical and revolves around the sun. Now that pictures of the Earth have been taken from space, which provide seeable evidence supporting the newer theories, it is more difficult to believe that the older theories are correct. A spherical Earth revolving around the sun is all the more believable because these pictures are commonly available to public viewing. Those who can not reconcile scientific theories, when they are at odds with religious beliefs, choose to apply faith to discount the scientific. However, they will also make discriminating choices for when they believe science can be applicable. For instance, a person may discount Evolution as a valid scientific theory but also believe in medical science. An individual may believe the Earth is no older than 6000 years and at the same time refuse blood-letting as an effective medical treatment. The main difference here is that the scientific advances in medicine are more commonly-sensed, and hence more believable than the evidence for Evolution. This disbelief in scientific logic, until common-sense is provided for, has been used for years to discount global warming. Recently, with wild changes in weather patterns, and abnormally warm temperatures more obviously noticed, the resistance to the belief in global warming is weakening.

What makes faith in science different than true science is the lack of logic of cause and effect. The word faith may sometimes be used to describe prediction-making which is better than chance and is based on experience. This is more common-sense than scientific. A person may say that they have faith that their friend will show up on time, or their quarterback will have a good game. When one says this, it is not faith, but a prediction based on knowledge of previous outcomes in similar circumstances. If a statement such as the preceding is made, and the friend is known to habitually turn up late, or the quarterback is known to have previously always failed to play well and his ability is unchanged, then truly it is prediction made simply on faith.

Faith in science is a real danger. Science is often confused for something which it is not. The true scientist knows this. This confusion typically manifests itself in several characteristic ways such as: a belief in the reality of science-fiction, an over-optimism with regard to the speed with which scientific progress can be made, and a belief that humans have the capacity to exist beyond the bounds of mother-nature. For instance, many would believe that the ability to live on the Moon, Mars, or space colonies will be quickly realized and can be accomplished without much complication. Some also believe that science-fiction items like collection devices for greenhouse gas will be readily available to counteract act global warming by shipping theses gasses off into space. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that these things could be done, only that time and capital investment etc. in such endeavors might be better employed to simpler and more sustainable methods with less negative effect. These beliefs can generally be classified under the heading of pseudo-science rather than science. Those who are not scientists, and do not have the expertise and understanding, in regard to what proofs and evidence can be best applied to discern pseudo-science from science, can still employ common-sense to give some help in filtering out what is illogical within the bounds of what could be considered reasonable. Common-sense will also be seen as valuable in determining the ethical, moral, and worthy applications of advances in science.

Beyond simply a misplaced faith in science, the limitations of scientific application must also be understood.

First, science can not provide explanation for that which is un-testable. For instance, science will not tell why we exist, and where the inception of The Universe came from. Explanations of Evolution may start with the Big Bang but can not go back farther than this. It can also not be applied to the metaphysical without provable means. For instance it is not useful in conveying emotional expression. This is the subject of art. Psychology, of course, attempts to scientifically quantify emotional response but this is always done with use of testable evidence of behavior. Animal Science may be able to map the chemical responses in a chimpanzee’s brain but the usefulness, beyond simply reinforcing the observation of animal behavior and emotions, is not generally rewarding even if a scientist may be better able to describe and quantify them. Until a human can be turned into a chimpanzee and back again, with full ability to record the emotional activity that went on, a human will never be fully able to know what a chimpanzee is thinking. It is unclear what the practical benefit of this understanding would gain either the human or chimpanzee in application if no alteration of human behavior follows. A deeper understanding of animal behavior is not dependent on scientific methods, and has already existed in primitive human cultures.

Second, although science can provide us with explanations of natural occurrences which make predictions of the future more accurate, it is often only the best explanation we currently have for some future event. It is often limited. The misunderstanding of science’s limitations results in public over-confidence in the extent to which scientific reasoning can be applied. This is often propped-up by the scientist or the promoter of science. One sees this daily, for example, in the weather forecast. Predictions are made about the weather and these can be helpful. They are based on models constructed on data from history and established patterns. The probability of these patterns, leading to various outcomes, is weighed and we are given a forecast. This is more accurate than purely guessing based by looking at the sky and, although the forecast may not be proven fully correct, it normally is not wildly off, however sometimes it is. Surprise severity of storms, or predicted weather events which do not hit the target, are common mistakes in the field of meteorology. The weather can also not be predicted, with great certainty, more than a few days in advance. A seven day forecast is no more than an educated guess and is only accepted as such. The seven day forecast is a prime example of a cultural predilection to make believe that science is more potent than it really is. Common-sense can be applied to check the accuracy of this statement by writing down the predictions for the weather seven days in advance and checking the accuracy of forecast when that day arrives. The weather man will employ graphics, technical jargon, and computer modeling to help project the strength of scientific application. Further, the typical American forecaster does not just simply tell what the weather will be like tomorrow or the next day, but uses exhaustive maps and explanation to emphasize to the viewer that the most scientific means are being used. These lengthy explanations, prior to just telling tomorrow’s temperature, amount of precipitation, and sunshine, are presented as scientific proof. The evidence of the thought process used in determining the forecast is valued by the viewer in the same manner that the teacher values the written evidence of logical problem solving before the final mathematical answer is given. However, such modeling, which may be useful for learning the logical technique to solving math problems, is of sketchier value for the seven-day forecast, and has no proven capacity to predict the weather with much more certainty, for months in advance, than a farmer’s almanac.

Another limitation of Science is that it is purely about predictions and outcomes, it has no moral stance. This is a great limitation and the one which is most often confused. It should be emphasized that this is not so much a failing of science, anymore than it is a failure of an elephant not to fly. This is more accurately the failing of the individual to make good use of science. Science is merely a mechanism for explanation, not a rulebook for code of conduct or ethical behavior. When this is not understood, the results are most normally dangerous. A scientist may be moral, but science is not. Science is performed by human beings who each have their own interpretation of action which should, or should not be taken, based on scientific findings and predictions. But, when making judgments about how to act, a scientist is no longer acting as a scientist. Moral statements are beyond the realm of science. This is too often mistaken by those who want to equate science with religion.

It is common, on a radio or TV science program, to have a renowned scientist present evidence based on studies of the natural world, who will be willing to go so far as to argue his data, models and predictions. However, he will not venture into the realm of public policy or advocate for rules of modifying human behavior that may have affect on the predictions he has made. The scientist will not make any moral judgment on the predictions they make. If they do so, they then will emphasize that they are now speaking as an individual and not a scientist. This is a troubling aspect of the scientist in that he or she is often fearful of taking sides and disassociate themselves from their capacity for common-sense in an effort to present their analysis as cold and robotic without influence by prejudice. The religious leader, of course, has not such a fear. When we look at religion, we see that it differs from science, in that, it contains not only a system for making predictions (the effect that current actions will cause) but also contains the additional component of rules in which to act. Science is lacking this component of providing rules of behavior. It is merely an explanation and has no moral component for future action.

Misapplication of the scientific method is another of today’s tendencies related to science. This is characterized by the craze to study anything whether a scientific explanation would be of value or not. The craze to study everything is coupled with a need to overcomplicate explanations in order to make them appear more scientifically acceptable. The case of the weather forecaster’s exhaustive explanations is an example of this. Another is the constantly changing scientific explanations for weight gain presented as advances that will make the maintenance of a healthier body weight easier. However, there is no evidence that supplying greater information, beyond eating less and exercising more, eases the process of becoming thinner. Of course, drastic surgical techniques can be used to prevent weight gain but they do not address the root of the problem. Science can provide more explanation for things that are understood by common-sense. However, this does not mean humans will employ them when a change of mind is a necessary component of implementation.

Today, one is bombarded by studies which offer possible hypothesis for cause and effect. If a search is done for science stories on the internet, thousands of studies can be quickly found. Everything from teleportation to the genetic marker for a propensity to dance can be found. The multitude of studies and avenues of research will only continue to increase. This is caused, in some part, by the market for scientific research and funding, and an increase in the general population of scientists. Because science is now a job, and not just a noble pursuit, it must promote itself and take advantage of money offered for its support. Papers, postulations, and experiments must be done, by teachers and researchers in higher education, to secure jobs or gain promotion. Hard numbers and measurable evidence is wanted to explain things that are not better understood even if data is able to be collected and analyzed. Studies, for example, on what types of environments people enjoy inhabiting is one such topic. Volumes have been written on how people enjoy cities with a pedestrian and human scale, and don’t particularly enjoy spending time under highway overpasses or traversing desert-like parking lots. Although evidence of this kind supports what is already known by common-sense, it has not appreciably changed the design of cities in the United States. Planning is still done on the scale of the automobile with the principle concern being the circulation and parking of cars. Even when science provides information in subjects that could benefit from change this does not mean any change will be implemented until dictated by the market place and a change of mind.

These trends multiply the information available and often lead to no better understanding, (due to contradictory findings and muddled results) in numerous subjects, which would not be practically advanced from more explanation in the first place. It is not being argued that scientific research should be limited, and that one should not be able to study any topic they can imagine, only that the consequence, from this quest for greater scientific explanation, should be realized. The apparent harm done by too much information is that it bolsters the public overconfidence in science’s ability to study and solve any problem. It also runs counter to the basic value of science to provide the most elegant, useful, and simple explanation. Einstein spent the last portion of his life in a search for a unified theory of force. Although he did not succeed, he understood that the true value of science is to provide the most comprehensive and elegant explanations for natural phenomenon, not the most inconclusive and muddled. E=mc² is a mark of genius, not only because it has as yet not been disproved, but because of its simple elegance.

A further negative consequence of the craze for scientific study is that it is now used as a crutch for special interests fighting common-sense. Even when backed-up by scientific findings, special interests will always require further study and examination to prove conclusively something whose interpretation would run counter to their industry. It is generally not possible to prove something conclusively in science. A theory is mainly strengthened by not being disproved. Special interests make use of hypotheses and conclusions from different studies and data, or different analysis of common data, to support their side. This pseudo-science is merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing and evidence of the scheming and cunning promoted and valued by global capitalism. The only safe-guard against these refutations of science is the application of common-sense.

When little study or promotion of a scientific finding has been done, but common-sense could still provide a good sensible feeling of cause and affect, most people will disregard this until more study has been done or the finding has been more heavily marketed. An example of this could be applied to the automobile. A study of the effect of inhaling car fumes, tied to measurements of amounts of particulates from automobile exhaust in different environments, on respiration and human health is not a topic marketed much today. Because the health effects from inhaling car pollution is not promoted to the extent of inhaling cigarette smoke, for instance, it is generally assumed not to be a source of much danger. However, it is known by common-sense that a good way to commit suicide is to park your car in a closed space and turn the engine on until you are overcome by carbon monoxide. It should be obvious that although the atmosphere of the Earth is much larger than a garage, there must be measurable consequence from car exhaust pollution, and, just as with cigarettes, risks must go up with greater proximity and frequency of contact with the fumes. Until this study is promoted, those who do not believe in the power of common-sense will continue to refute any substantial negative link. The strength of the automobile industry and general desire for cars, and other forms of transportation, which give off noxious gas, will continue to be valued over bodily health until different values are common. For people with common-sense, a scientific study is not needed to understand that these fumes are noxious because they are shown to be an effective means of suicide. The Nazis, in fact, used gas from the automobile tail pipe in its initial concentration camp mass killings. Its relative potency can again be compared to that of cigarette smoking, in that, even though smoking is bad for the health, it is not so noxious as to make inhaling large quantities of cigarettes an immediate life risk. Sitting down with the intent of inhaling cartons of cigarettes is not recognized as an effective way of administering immediate suicide.

The global capitalist market has a strong interest in refuting common-sense and denying or downplaying useful scientific findings. This is to be expected from the cunning necessarily employed to be successful in the competitive market place. The same successful advertising technique used for Marlboro cigarettes is now being applied to automobiles. Like the Marlboro man, who smoked his cigarette on a horse with a back-drop of the beautiful rugged American landscape, the SUV and driver are now positioned in the same rugged American landscape. The advertising campaign is just as effective as before in equating an activity dangerous for the species, to one that is in fact, healthy and symbolic of virility and well-being.

One sees in many of these examples the evidence of the cult of over-optimism. It will be spoken of more, but in regard to the area of science, one finds that it is principally supported by faith and an underlying belief in progress.

Progress is another of the decadent belief systems which is pervasive in our society. It is perhaps most evident in the beliefs of science, but is the underlying component supporting all aspects of the industrial economic complex. The term is so rooted in the sub-conscious that it is difficult to imagine modes of thinking which do not require the application of its common understanding.

It is true, that progress may sometimes be used to mean simply moving forward or an accumulation of time. However, we do not understand progress to mean movement in any direction, random motion, or movement that is away from a recognized end goal. If an end goal is unrecognized, or the position in regard to it is unknown, we may be deluded into thinking that progress is being made. For instance, if one is lost, but has not yet recognized it, and is actually traveling further away from their final destination, they will believe they are progressing until it becomes recognized that they are going the wrong way.

Progress is normally assumed to be happening in the society, despite any recognition of an end goal, simply because of the concept of an advance of time. Few will dispute that the future is farther along than the past. Time is perceived to be advancing linearly in a forward direction. This is supported by the clock, the calendar, and the numbering of years. However, the popular conception of progress is not one that merely describes a condition of advancing time. It also implies a betterment of life. Although betterment of life is subjective, and a definitive end goal would be hard for most to describe, the belief is that the more things change the better they become. It is maintained here that an acceptable end goal, however, unattainable, for humanity, is to reach a point of non-suffering. This is essentially the same as an end goal of maximum freedom. The directionality toward lesser degrees of suffering would likely be accepted by the majority of the population as a good goal. However, the route to take will be disputed, as no definitive map has been provided. A path toward lesser suffering is generally understood in Western influenced culture as achieving greater and greater comforts of life. In regard to science, it is believed that due to an increased understanding of cause and affect and use of technology, greater control will be exacted over the natural world, ensuring greater comforts of life. This would be a worthy use of science, if the concentration on the end goal could be maintained.

The concept of progress in relation to the thought of man and history was described by Hegel’s dialectic as thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The notion of direction towards a goal, the goal of freedom, was to proceed in this way. Marx applied the concept of progress to history and socio-economic organization for wealth distribution. The concepts of Hegel and Marx held some attraction because both theories involved a process of purification. Concepts are accumulated and countered but then a synthesis is achieved purifying both. The effect is a lessening or reduction of what went before. A minimizing effect was achieved in the sublimation of the idea. Ever more concepts would be accumulating but, they would continue to be synthesized in due course. This is still understood by the true scientist, who attempts to purify earlier thought to a more inclusive but simpler understanding. However, today’s general belief in the power of science is based solely on an understanding that by mere accumulation, without any process of reduction, progress is guaranteed. It is not surprising that an understanding, whose core principle that more is better, has been formulated under the current prevailing economic system which flourishes under this rule. Change for sake of change, without the necessary synthesizing of what was known before, and with the belief of progress by right of the advance of time, is the prevailing attitude in much of the world.

Some things can and have progressed. Others may progress for times, regress, occur in cycles, run on a linear path, or could just be called random motion. For example, the years on the calendar may run on linearly to infinity, but the seasons are cyclical-there are only four which keep reappearing. The numbered years are an abstract creation of humans. Animals and plants do not have such a calendar and do not recognize it as significantly meaningful. The cycle of the seasons is recognized by animals and an understanding of it is necessary for their survival. Humans certainly see and feel the seasons passing. However, because a human superiority over the forces of nature is now commonly believed, there is little need to respect this cyclical pattern beyond preparing for sporting seasons or holidays, or getting the snow plow or lawn mower ready. The individual human life begins and ends. One may progress for a time in body and mind and then regress until death. One may remain static in knowledge. One may progress in wisdom during one’s lifetime or not. A belief in progress has not significantly lengthened the human life span.

Some activities may gain greater knowledge but would likely not be seen as progressing. Such are the fields of art. Perhaps there is better understanding of the chemistry of paint, better brushes, and more knowledge of technique, however, painting has not progressed in quality or meaning. As well, the electric guitar, and general knowledge and information of rock n’ roll may be greater today than previously. But, rock n’ roll music has regressed in quality since the 1970’s. Art does not necessarily improve upon greater technique and more knowledge becoming available. Art is an expression of feeling which may change based on societal conditions, but is essentially incapable of progress. One may read a Shakespeare sonnet and find, that since it was written, no progress has been achieved in this subject. The notion of progress in the subconscious mind of today’s general society requires one to believe that knowledge is imparted to the next generation simply by genetic imprint. We know this not to be the case, as knowledge can only be imparted by education. This makes actual progress highly tenuous and dependent upon each individual learning past lessons and synthesizing them. This, however, does not seem to be the case as good knowledge from past lessons is continuously forgotten and has not been synthesized into the current consciousness.

For instance, it has long been understood, that an action necessarily has effect elsewhere. This may be called Karma in Buddhist philosophy, the law of inertia in Newtonian physics, cause and effect in common-sense, or by any number of other names depending on which philosophy you are reading. It can be assured, regardless if you believe in science, common-sense, mythology or a combination of the three, that any action will cause a reverberation, and necessarily, a change for something else. It is interesting to see that the current notion of progress does not prescribe to this belief. Today’s progress believes that any action or change can be wholly good and need not have negative impact. The destructive force of the inherent belief in the righteous path of progress is in its opposition to the concept of quality and to an end goal of lesser suffering.

Synonymous with the idea that things are getting better all the time, is that overall quality level has improved. Quality is something that is measurable, and involves the interplay of many characteristics as Pirsig and others have effectively explained. It involves the evidence of: craftsmanship, care, skill, and usefulness. The ability to recognize varying degrees of quality is established as of inherent value to human being. There is of course, varying degrees of quality in all things. Shakespeare and Mozart are of a higher quality level than the average writer and musician.

It is assumed, however latently in the public perception, that progress in science has the effect of increasing the quality level of all that it deals with. Science has contributed to an overall improvement of quality in the field of medicine. More effective treatments and use of technology have for example provided cures for previously incurable disease and lowered infant mortality rates. However, the availability of medical care over the last fifty years in the United States, (whose distribution would fall under the economic and political sciences) has not progressed. Science has contributed to the quality of automobiles in terms of safety, but has regressed in terms of fuel efficiency. The quality of buildings and machines are not necessarily progressing, while the means for making profit or producing something cheaply has. If one looks at the quality of the most common building materials offered at building centers, they are not of a higher quality, than what was offered in the past, they are only more cheaply produced. The same is true of common consumer items as evidenced by the offerings at the most profitable big-box retail stores. Animal habitats and quality of life for other species has regressed, except perhaps for household pets. The polar bear will be facing extinction soon as his habitat of ice quickly melts away due to global warming.

Although quality is a good measure of determining progress it becomes difficult to apply across related disciplines. Quality is more able to be applied to discreet objects or actions such as in evaluating a performance or valuing one arm chair over another. When one begins to measure progress with the focus on an underlying goal towards lesser suffering and greater freedom of the individual, it becomes clearer how science contributes within broader fields. It should be mentioned that lesser suffering is accomplished through the maximization of beneficial choice options. When one can choose between many good outcomes the freedom of the individual is increased. The belief that American medical care has progressed is actually supported by this evaluation. It is clear that medical science and technology have improved, and although American health care is problematic in implementation and availability, there has been an overall decrease in suffering for the average citizen. The measurement of lower infant mortality rates, more effective treatments for previously incurable disease, and longer life expectancy reinforces this. Societies that use less modern techniques show higher rates of infant mortality, more death from curable disease, and lower life expectancy.

In the science of American ground transportation, although it may be argued that individual modes of transportation have progressed in quality, it can be seen there has been an overall regression of freedom of transportation over the past fifty years. For ground transportation, the automobile has become the sole good choice for the vast majority of Americans. For even the most ordinary and essential tasks of: food shopping, going to the post office, the bank, to work, or to a park, the automobile is the only effectively good choice afforded. The loss of redundancy in the ability to use the feet, the bicycle, tram, or train as a good means of transport has decreased individual freedom of movement. This is of course dictated not so much by the science of individual modes of transportation technology but the effect of compartmentalization of disciplines. Transportation options have been collected into a broader range of pseudo-science known as city and regional planning. This field, like most today, professes to be of the scientific nature. However, it would be better served by expansion of reliance on common-sense thinking. City and regional planning has seen no improvement over the last 100 years despite efforts for data collection and quantifying of human tendencies. The forcing of a scientific approach on this field, to reinforce its theories, has had the detrimental effect of negating common-sense or simply disregarding it. Greek and Baroque city planning did not rely on data collection and scientific analysis but on the valuation of beauty and harmony of affect to achieve some of the greatest city plans. The forcing of pseudo-scientific theory on the current field is a chief cause of the destruction of inner-city neighborhoods and urban fabric at the expense of accommodating the automobile. The pseudo-science of city planning favors the automobile over the pedestrian, and scales the environment in its favor. Due to this harmful misapplication of a method, with a biased belief in progress maximized through the use of the automobile, the car is now the best suited to the environment not the person. For the great majority of Americans there are simply less good options to get around. This has real consequential effect on basic safety of the individual. As is obvious through common-sense, the more mechanical something is, the more likely it is to break. Thus, for people without great expendable income, when the inevitable breaking of the car occurs, and as oil prices increase, they will be left stranded.

The effect of increasing complexity of technology offered by science in regard to overall level of freedom can be examined in reference to the human dwelling. The improvements in the house have not substantially progressed since the implementation of indoor plumbing. However, conveniences have been added, such as appliances and a general provision for more square footage of indoor space per person. These have increased indoor comforts. As well, mechanical systems for air conditioning and heating have developed to simulate climates to which the human body is better adapted. The effect of upgrade of mechanical systems has not so much been to make life substantially more comfortable in long established areas of human population, but has simply allowed for development into more and more inhospitable climates. This has been coupled with a disregard of effective but less technological primitive means of providing for comfort. Non-technological means to provide greater comforts in the home can be provided, for example, by the form and situation of a building. With the sole reliance on technological means to provide comfort (promoted as scientific advance), building form, material, and situation have lost their relevance and have become merely a matter of preference for symbolizing idiosyncratic meaning.

The structure and form of the American house, has essentially gone unchanged since colonial times and has been built with essentially the same wood frame system for the last one hundred and fifty years. This house model is used across The United States irregardless of climate and setting. It is then situated next to its clones in the same characteristically planned auto-dependent suburban developments in any state of the union. When this construction and planning technique is looked at from a viewpoint of lessening suffering, a loss of redundancy of good choices is apparent. Those who are most reliant on technology to create a livable environment are more at risk when their mechanical system fails. Building that has occurred in desert climates such as the rapid expansion in the American Southwest, and into extremely cold climates, such as in Alaska, are good examples. Both rely solely on technology to support the necessities for sustenance. Without properly functioning systems, alternate good options are not available to withstand the extreme heat or cold. Scientific rationality has not been employed in general in regard to dwelling purely due to population pressure requiring expansion into more and more inclement parts of the Earth and made feasible by a cheap price of oil.

The belief that things are progressing by right, supported by a belief in the omnipotence of science, is delusional and is disrespectful of the past. The past is made of the people and values of the past. We will all be people of the past. The disrespect of the past is very prevalent in the more industrially countries. Older dwellings and natural lands are continually ripped apart, often without regard to their part in the overall goal toward greater freedom and less suffering. More recent attempts to save old neighborhoods and preserve structure are a good sign for respecting the efforts of the past. However, science tends to reinforce the opposite. The belief in science and technology places the most value on the new. The old is immediately determined obsolete and thrown into the landfill. Many old items are in fact just as effective, or more so, when compared to their newer replacements. Old high-quality items and techniques are changed purely because of emulation and the underlying belief in progress. The case of so-called progress in American ground transportation, making the use of the: foot, bicycle, tram, and train virtually obsolete, due to development of automobile technology is one case.

Many of these beliefs of science are misinterpreted by the general public and are not really in the realm of science at all. Beliefs in pseudo-science are counter to the progress that can be afforded by the employment of the scientific process. The scientist would say that the strength of science is that it is the destroyer of myth. It allows one to predict and gain greater control over the future. On the surface, and from what has been taught, this should be true. The scientist is not a robot and does not operate in a vacuum. She or he is also a person who will be affected by the implementation of science. The scientist must develop a conscience. Many scientists already have a conscience but are confused by the goal of progress. When it is understood that the goal of science, like other endeavors of humanity is towards a lessening of suffering, then progress can be effectively made. When the progressive scientist of conscience is born, it will no longer be adequate to simply do something because it can be done. The progressive scientist will be a specialist but will avoid compartmentalized thinking. She or he will be an appreciator of quality and have a well develop capacity for common-sense. She or he will understand that every action causes a reverberation affecting something else and that sometimes the wisest course of action is non-action.