My grandgrandgrandfather took part in the revolutionary movement which 1795 also took place in Switzerland. Then, mankind thought to take its fate in its own hands. Napoleon for a short time was seen as the new Prometheus, freeing humankind from the domination of kings and popes. In this Promethean hope my grandfather entered science becoming a chemist after the model of Pasteur. the aim being to understand and improve life by science. My father entered science becoming a physicist, imagining that by reading the laws of nature he was reading the thoughts of God and at the same time opening ways for improving our existence. I entered science as a physician with the fantasy of improving the life of individuals and even of society (by public health). The overarching idea was a naive belief in "progress" which in my case lasted from adolescence until about 1986.
This belief was fundamentally questioned in 1972 be the report of the Club of Rome. While the Club of Rome still showed paths how to get out of the calamity, these were roads never taken. Now all developments CO2, methane, temperature, water scarcity, species extinction point to a rapidly accelerating march to the abyss which can mean the end of civilisation within decades or even years and which will take place regardless of the possibilities or dangers of artificial intelligence.
The old idea of "progress" has vanished during my lifetime and there is no rational hope that science will get us out of this. On the contrary there is an awareness that we are heading towards a struggle of all versus all, where any means will be justified and utilised. Trump is the man of the hour.
As to religion, I think that some people will turn inwards and find consolation in ideas of philosophy, stoicism, spirituality and indeed sorts of religion. Anyway, that's what happens to me.
I agree. I felt this before. Seems to me a fundamental problem. Perhaps through Facebook we are stuck in a "like"-culture, which seduces us to think that it matters if we like something or not, and discussions and decisions and are shaped around what's more likeable, instead of facing awkward realities.
Despite their obvious and radical differences of method, religion and science fulfil pretty much the same role in a society.
They both are supposed to explain to common people how the world and the universe work in a comprehensive manner so everyday life appears a bit less chaotic and a bit more predictable.
Lightings might occurs because Thor, Zeus or God Almighty is angry. Or because electric charges are building up in the clouds. It doesn't really matter as long as there is an explaination and a way for people to protect themself, either by adding a lightning rod on their roof or making the proper offerings to appease the gods' wrath.
But when a religion is perceived as a tool used by the elite to support and justify the actual social order much more than explaining the way the world works, lay men just stop believing in it. And soon start looking elsewhere for a better explanations for whatever they actually live through.
This is what happened when more and more people turned away from the roman gods and embraced Christianity as the roman religion proved less and less able to maintain the empire integrity and instead was more and more used by the members of the roman elite to justify their wealth (until, btw, they ended up switching to Christianity).
Then, after more and more people in the West embraced the religion of progress (whose science is the backbone) and enjoyed some obvious benefit during 2 or 3 centuries, it is now hitting its hard limits and slowly but surely wearing off. With, I'm afraid so, no religion or spirituality that can properly address the challenges of our time.
Todd's book is definitely worth reading by the way.
Even if I was more interested by the first chapters regarding the Russia/Ukraine situation (and more specifically the demographic dynamic at work over there) than the next ones regarding the situation in other western hemisphere countries.
BTW, "biophysical economics" is a very disturbing set of ideas.
It's way too deterministic for many people who will routinely accuse whoever bring the matter forward to "depoliticizing the debate" as they prefer to believe that values and the way they might be translated as policies can prevail on ressource availability.
Still, in my opinion, they are wrong more often than not.
> Nor does he explore the deep break in Western society created by the COVID-19 pandemic that damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the very fabric of science.
The fabric of science was badly damaged long before COVID. COVID just made it obvious for all to see.
My grandgrandgrandfather took part in the revolutionary movement which 1795 also took place in Switzerland. Then, mankind thought to take its fate in its own hands. Napoleon for a short time was seen as the new Prometheus, freeing humankind from the domination of kings and popes. In this Promethean hope my grandfather entered science becoming a chemist after the model of Pasteur. the aim being to understand and improve life by science. My father entered science becoming a physicist, imagining that by reading the laws of nature he was reading the thoughts of God and at the same time opening ways for improving our existence. I entered science as a physician with the fantasy of improving the life of individuals and even of society (by public health). The overarching idea was a naive belief in "progress" which in my case lasted from adolescence until about 1986.
This belief was fundamentally questioned in 1972 be the report of the Club of Rome. While the Club of Rome still showed paths how to get out of the calamity, these were roads never taken. Now all developments CO2, methane, temperature, water scarcity, species extinction point to a rapidly accelerating march to the abyss which can mean the end of civilisation within decades or even years and which will take place regardless of the possibilities or dangers of artificial intelligence.
The old idea of "progress" has vanished during my lifetime and there is no rational hope that science will get us out of this. On the contrary there is an awareness that we are heading towards a struggle of all versus all, where any means will be justified and utilised. Trump is the man of the hour.
As to religion, I think that some people will turn inwards and find consolation in ideas of philosophy, stoicism, spirituality and indeed sorts of religion. Anyway, that's what happens to me.
This forum really needs a button marked, "I agree, but I don't really like it!"
I agree. I felt this before. Seems to me a fundamental problem. Perhaps through Facebook we are stuck in a "like"-culture, which seduces us to think that it matters if we like something or not, and discussions and decisions and are shaped around what's more likeable, instead of facing awkward realities.
Interesting subject indeed.
Despite their obvious and radical differences of method, religion and science fulfil pretty much the same role in a society.
They both are supposed to explain to common people how the world and the universe work in a comprehensive manner so everyday life appears a bit less chaotic and a bit more predictable.
Lightings might occurs because Thor, Zeus or God Almighty is angry. Or because electric charges are building up in the clouds. It doesn't really matter as long as there is an explaination and a way for people to protect themself, either by adding a lightning rod on their roof or making the proper offerings to appease the gods' wrath.
But when a religion is perceived as a tool used by the elite to support and justify the actual social order much more than explaining the way the world works, lay men just stop believing in it. And soon start looking elsewhere for a better explanations for whatever they actually live through.
This is what happened when more and more people turned away from the roman gods and embraced Christianity as the roman religion proved less and less able to maintain the empire integrity and instead was more and more used by the members of the roman elite to justify their wealth (until, btw, they ended up switching to Christianity).
Then, after more and more people in the West embraced the religion of progress (whose science is the backbone) and enjoyed some obvious benefit during 2 or 3 centuries, it is now hitting its hard limits and slowly but surely wearing off. With, I'm afraid so, no religion or spirituality that can properly address the challenges of our time.
Todd's book is definitely worth reading by the way.
Even if I was more interested by the first chapters regarding the Russia/Ukraine situation (and more specifically the demographic dynamic at work over there) than the next ones regarding the situation in other western hemisphere countries.
BTW, "biophysical economics" is a very disturbing set of ideas.
It's way too deterministic for many people who will routinely accuse whoever bring the matter forward to "depoliticizing the debate" as they prefer to believe that values and the way they might be translated as policies can prevail on ressource availability.
Still, in my opinion, they are wrong more often than not.
> Nor does he explore the deep break in Western society created by the COVID-19 pandemic that damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the very fabric of science.
The fabric of science was badly damaged long before COVID. COVID just made it obvious for all to see.
We are in a new age of Noah. Power, greed, hedonism. All is corrupted.
If you want to know the Ancient Greek world that started Judaism and Christanity, this guy is blowing up the internet. Wow, just wow.
https://youtu.be/2dY-roDpHWI?si=QTvvupgxExCLKAw6