We Don't Need More Science.

[Will Bigger]

Call me crazy, but I think that if we as a species simply haunted in our scientific progress today, we would be just fine. This is not to say that science hasn't served a very good purpose, but it's done enough in the way of agriculture, medicince, and technology to make life great for the whole world. What we really need now is better values, we need to stop suppressing our emotions, we need to love ourselves, and we need spirituality. 

With the resources science has produced, poverty and other woes could be ended tomorrow. But, for all the progress we've made rationally, we've made very little morally and spiritually, and so people still die of starvation and there is still suicical  depression and elephabts are killed for ivory every single day.

[jse]

The world's woes has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with an unrealized mankind.  Beware of confusing the two.

[Leo Gura]

@Will Bigger There's a bigger picture at work though. Science is not merely a human invention for our own happiness and gratification. Science is an outgrowth of the evolution of the universe. So you're not going to stop it. It needs to continue to evolve. The universe is seeking to understand itself through humans, through science, and other means. The only way to put this genie back in the bottle would be to wipe the entire human species.

If, 100 years from now, science develops a foolproof technology for enlightenment, it could redeem itself big-time. Science will have to drop the naive realist paradigm pretty soon, so it will start to converge with spirituality at some point. If we can just keep our shit together for a few hundred more years and not melt down the planet or let corporations take everything over, things should look very promising.

[Guest username]

There are still plenty of practical problems that science has yet to address, and the standard of living (materially) will likely only improve with technological breakthroughs. 

 

I believe there's somewhat of a dilemma with the human species in that our intellect has allowed us to circumvent equilbrating with the environment by allowing ourselves to be killed of naturally, so we created new problems by increasing our capacity for self-annihilation and ecological destruction.

It is, of course, as you said, important to do personal development and pursue inner growth. That is a big risk factor for humanity's well-being, but a lot of other problems won't be addressed by pursuing higher consciousness alone.

Of course, if humanity was all enlightened, our agenda may very well be different and a lot of our priorities would likely be different as well. For instance, perhaps we would be more interested in being at harmony with the environment than using technology to control it.

However, from the perspective of creating new possibilities and dealing with practical problems (depending on how you define problems), technological advancement is absolutely necessary. We still have things like AIDS,cancer,  natural mass extinctions, threats from space, etc.

Without technological progress, our environment would wipe us out soon enough.

 

Edit:  There's also the issue that this hypothetical situation is not going to happen under any circumstances, but I'll assume you realized that when posting.

Edited April 6, 2017 by username

[Prabhaker]

4 hours ago, Will Bigger said:

We Don't Need More Science

It is good to have great technology; certainly it helps man to get rid of stupid work, certainly it helps man to get rid of many kinds of slavery. Technology can help man and animals both. Animals are also tortured; they are suffering very much because we are using them. Machines can replace them, machines can do all the work.

Humanity should be totally free from stupid work, because in that state you will start growing - in aesthetic sense, sensitivity, relaxation, meditation. You will become more artistic and you will become more spiritual because you will have time and energy available.

Science brings prosperity. The poor man has to think about bread and butter - he cannot even manage that. He has to think about a shelter, clothes, children, medicine, and he cannot manage these small things. His whole life is burdened by trivia; he has no space, no time to devote to God. And even if he goes to the temple or to the church, he goes to ask only for material things.

Poverty is not spiritual. Spirituality has a totally different dimension. It is the ultimate luxury - when you have all and suddenly you see that, although you have all, deep inside there is a vacuum which has to be filled, an emptiness which has to be transformed into a plenitude. One becomes aware of the inner emptiness only when one has everything on the outside. Science can do that miracle. Use science, but don't be used by it.

[Tibor]

What sceince has done for the 2000 year or more is that, besides it was used for the greater good.

It has also been used for suppression, geneticly manipulating seeds, finding medications that doesnt cure only relief symthoms, etc etc the list is quite long.

And it created for a lot a big believe systeem. 

So it did good and was used badly sometimes.

Guess thats the law of attraction.

[Guest username]

Here's a relevant Sadhguru video:

 

[aurum]

Wasted energy in my opinion.

You don't go back. There is only forward.

I see a serious merging happening between science and spirituality. It's beautiful really. Right brain, left brain.

 

 

 

[Loreena]

Science is very very very very important. Nothing more important than science. In fact even spirituality is a kind of science, the science of intangible, a spiritual science, like a branch of the sciences. 

Do not conflate the two. There is no conflict. Both aim at understanding the laws of function of nature and at resolution of problems and both aim at benefit, progress and development. Both should be developed and focused on concurrently. 

Both go hand in hand. It is a human error and narrow mindedness that separates the two. 

Much of the problem is because of misuse of science rather than the correct use. And this misuse is because of an absence of spirituality. Spirituality should be at the base of everything, including science. A spiritual man will use science properly and constructively. A neurotic 'aspiritual' man will use science destructively. Here science is not the problem but the 'user' of the instrument. Everything is an instrument including science and religion. They can be used wisely or destructively depending on the user. And the degree of awareness and wisdom and goodness of the user again depends on his level of spirituality. 

From spirituality comes goodness and everything should ideally arise from this goodness but it doesn't. 

There is a tremendous need to grow spiritually on a massive scale.  But science is not in any way obstructing it. They are not to be mixed or conflated. Even science needs to develop tremendously. 

[Bob84]

Could one say that sience is a very practical belief?

Could we say that it is because of sience that we no longer burn spiritual people we dont agree with (witches)?

Is it fair to say that sience created the atomic bomb but isnt the reason for using it?

 

[Tibor]

36 minutes ago, Bob84 said:

Could one say that sience is a very practical belief?

Could we say that it is because of sience that we no longer burn spiritual people we dont agree with (witches)?

Is it fair to say that sience created the atomic bomb but isnt the reason for using it?

 

Youre totaly right.

Its not the scientist that had wrong intensions.

But the man who used it.

[Leo Gura]

One of the problems with science is it's hyper-compartmentalization. When you put the blinders on and only focus on one narrow thing you lose sight of the larger picture, which leads to disaster. It is not safe to make assumptions such as, "Oh well... I'll just focus on making this one scientific breakthrough to win my Nobel prize and if someone ends up using it to destroy the world, that's not my problem. As a scientist, my only duty is making valid discoveries."

That is the way of unconsciousness.

[Guest username]

@Leo Gura I've been wondering about that. Of course it is a problem to be myopic, but with knowledge being so vast, is it really even possible for an individual to avoid all the blind spots, or even close? I think it becomes increasingly problematic as human knowledge expands.

They talk about this a lot in mathematics. It used to be an an excellent mathematician could be well versed in all the major fields. Now our knowledge has expanded so much that it is difficult to have that same broad understanding with and real depth; it takes decades to be considered a real expert in just one branch, such as analysis or set theory; knowing all of them at an expert level would be unthinkable today.

Any time I take up an area of study, I feel it is far to vast for me to really grasp the possible implications of any particular work. 

I think the factor of opportunity cost always make somewhat of a trade-off between breadth and depth in anyone's knowledge structure. Knowing how to attain the right balance is very tricky, and I'm not even sure if it's possible to intuit how to optimize the balance.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by username

[Tibor]

8 minutes ago, username said:

Any time I take up an area of study, I feel it is far to vast for me to really grasp the possible implications of any particular work. 

That was they same for me for a long time. It felt like haveing a lot of islands of knowledge couldnt really connect them.

Until I decided to start from the basic meaning from  celbiology, Tesla wavelengtes frequencies, Dan Winter's works, accupressure, regression therapy, yoga, meditation, subconciousmind, the mind, dimensions, etc etc until the awareness or oneness.

This way more and more dots connected. Parts that I accepted as thrue for the time being until proven wrong I focused on in a later stadium.

By that time the concept I had of the total was breath enough to fill in the blank spots or specific details I feld I was missing.

At this moment I am reasearching the history of chakra's and testing out with a special resistance meter the frequiencies of each one.

In this way I could keep oversight without getting lost in details. (with ups and downs) because it is my opinion at this moment.

That all the knowledge is written down but there is nowhere a compleet story. And between all those pieces there is also a lot which is not correct or even false information. And the thing which is the worst is that every writer/scientist/spiritual leader/guru etc etc give their own labels/words for the same thing. Like awareness they all mean more or less the same but not quite. Thats a drag to really find out what some exactly mean by that in his or her perspective. There is no dictionary in this case.

Anyway thats the way I did and still do it. 

[Guest username]

2 minutes ago, Tibor said:

That was they same for me for a long time. It felt like haveing a lot of islands of knowledge couldnt really connect them.

Until I decided to start from the basic meaning from  celbiology, Tesla wavelengtes frequencies, Dan Winter's works, accupressure, regression therapy, yoga, meditation, subconciousmind, the mind, dimensions, etc etc until the awareness or oneness.

This way more and more dots connected. Parts that I accepted as thrue for the time being until proven wrong I focused on in a later stadium.

By that time the concept I had of the total was breath enough to fill in the blank spots or specific details I feld I was missing.

At this moment I am reasearching the history of chakra's and testing out with a special resistance meter the frequiencies of each one.

In this way I could keep oversight without getting lost in details. (with ups and downs) because it is my opinion at this moment.

That all the knowledge is written down but there is nowhere a compleet story. And between all those pieces there is also a lot which is not correct or even false information. And the thing which is the worst is that every writer/scientist/spiritual leader/guru etc etc give their own labels/words for the same thing. Like awareness they all mean more or less the same but not quite. Thats a drag to really find out what some exactly mean by that in his or her perspective. There is no dictionary in this case.

Anyway thats the way I did and still do it. 

That's exactly the problem though. You can't just study broadly and assume you've filled in the details because you don't know the details. You have to accept that you are ignorant of the intricacies of a certain body of knowledge. You haven't learned the nuances, which would potentially transform your perspective radically.

This becomes apparent in science especially. The difference between specialists and generalists when it comes to the specialist's specialty is in stark contrast. The opportunity cost issue is always a factor. People have limited time and can only learn so much. 

It's important to have broad broad and deep knowledge. The issue is in choosing how to best pursue it.How do you balance it? 

My contention is that there isn't really a way to know in advance. The more expansive our knowledge becomes the more unforeseen problems come with it. A human being and even the species only has a limited capacity. Of course, some ways of handling this problem are more effective than others, but the more advanced we become, the more potential we have for destructive use of our knowledge.  The greater the abundance of our knowledge, the more profound of a burden we have of managing it wisely.

The practical demands and know-how of managing our capabilities increases as our science progresses.

[Tibor]

17 minutes ago, username said:

The difference between specialists and generalists when it comes to the specialist's specialty is in stark contrast

To study for oneself the spirituality and all that is can be done. It just takes a lot of time but the more knowledge you make youre own the faster it gets and ones you have a general understanding which works for you. Then let youre intuition lead you to the parts you want to know more in detail.

Because of the Law of attraction it will guide you to the parts needed to get more awareness off.  

For scientists that are studying a special decease I dont think its a problem to focus only on that. With the goal in mind to resolve it.

My guess is that if we getting more advanced without raising our vibration or awareness it will get messy.

If we raise our awareness our morality and ethics levels raise accordingly. So inventions will be put to our best interest. 

[Guest username]

11 minutes ago, Tibor said:

To study for oneself the spirituality and all that is can be done. It just takes a lot of time but the more knowledge you make youre own the faster it gets and ones you have a general understanding which works for you. Then let youre intuition lead you to the parts you want to know more in detail.

Because of the Law of attraction it will guide you to the parts needed to get more awareness off.  

For scientists that are studying a special decease I dont think its a problem to focus only on that. With the goal in mind to resolve it.

My guess is that if we getting more advanced without raising our vibration or awareness it will get messy.

If we raise our awareness our morality and ethics levels raise accordingly. So inventions will be put to our best interest. 

I agree that pursuing higher consciousness would help us make better choices, but lack of knowledge will still be a problem. It really doesn't resolve my question.

[Tibor]

12 minutes ago, username said:

but lack of knowledge will still be a problem

Correct me if I understand it wrongly. By the lack of knowledge you mean the spiritual awareness of the majority of human civilisation?

[Guest username]

@Tibor No, I mean lack of knowledge in general.

 

For instance, with a scientific field, it is dangerous to be unaware of how knowledge can be misused. However, as knowledge expands it becomes increasingly difficult to have intimate, deep knowledge coupled with big picture understanding. Breadth and depth are both necessary, but striking the balance becomes harder and harder due to finite human capacity. This results in dealing with blind spots in one's understanding.

[Tibor]

1 minute ago, username said:

@Tibor No, I mean lack of knowledge in general.

 

For instance, with a scientific field, it is dangerous to be unaware of how knowledge can be misused. However, as knowledge expands it becomes increasingly difficult to have intimate, deep knowledge coupled with big picture understanding. Breadth and depth are both necessary, but striking the balance becomes harder and harder due to finite human capacity. This results in dealing with blind spots in one's understanding.

Aha I see That is indeed a big challenge. On one side if we all would raise our awareness it would create a more peacefull world. Less energy would be put in Genetic manipulation of foods, less energy would go into reseaching war machines and there are a lot more scientific studies which are not for the bennefid of the humanrace. So that would free alot of effort which could be put to good use in researching free earth friendly energy. Growing natural healty foods etc etc. So in my opinion we dont need more science we need other science which supports us instead of controlling us. This would be an ideal situation. But ofcourse there can and will be blindspots but is the present already like that Fukosima is an example.

So if we get Tesla's free earth friendly energy we could close all those reactors and would solve those blindspots. Not all maybe but other have to be dealt with as they come up and if thats all possible. I really dont know.

But again this would be an ideal situation.