Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers
23,028
edits
Science Is Bad: Difference between revisions
m
Fixing links to disambiguation pages
(quote cleanup) |
Derivative (talk | contribs) m (Fixing links to disambiguation pages) |
||
Line 11:
This can often come off as a bit hypocritical, particularly when dealing with speculative fiction, as you get an [[Anvilicious]] message of [[Fantastic Aesop|"everything we have so far is good, but we should stop now."]]
Nearly every [[Robot War]] story is based off of this (except the ones where everything was all right, until humanity [[Humans Are
For obvious reasons, this is played down in series starring a [[Science Hero]], heroic android, or [[Robot Buddy]], such as in some anime. It's more likely that there will be a (still obvious) distinction between good and bad scientists. This is usually played up if the heroes are [[Phlebotinum Rebel]]s, though.
Line 294:
** But there is also data to suggest that taking notes aid in retention of knowledge. So, who can say?
* Similarly, obesity is becoming a problem as physical labor becomes less necessary, while the nutrition (including fat) density of food goes up and hyperstimulants act on humans' in-built desires and cause them to eat more.
* This is a primary view of the Anarcho-Primitivist movement, and John Zerzan especially, who condemns ''writing and abstract thought'' as among other things, they lead to, you guessed it, technology and science. "Technology" simply means tool-making, something humans (and chimps, and crows...) do by nature, so [[Humans Are
** For those of you wondering what Zerzan ''does'' approve of, his ideal is basically one of acting on little more (''if'' more) than immediate desire and instinct. Not to mention a way of experiencing one's environment that's open to its totality—the main reason he detests abstraction, reification, and naming, as distractions that make one only take in a subset at a time. Suffice to say that he thinks the only unalloyed-good form of communication is ''telepathy'' (q.v. the idea that "lovers need no words"—even though that has more to do with being used to each other's methodologies).
** It's also worth noting that many anarcho-primitivists don't abjure tools, in the sense of objects utilized and/or modified for a very specific task (q.v. crows), and (more importantly) not requiring specialization. The sort of technology they think has no place in a viable society is the sort that requires just such specialization (and, by corollary, relinquishing of anything ''else'' you could do for the people...even if you yourself ''initially'' sought to abjure the other tasks to fine-tune that one goal, apparently). This basically means anything more complex than a kayak, bow, or fishing weir. Science is Bad here because it tempts one towards that which requires mandated labor division.
| |||