Last point first. We have generally made a huge screw up of the natural systems on this planet through our 'science' and its subsequent technology when it has been exploited through commerce not regulated by a decent moral code or an understanding of complex systems. The whole project of civilisation has seen 'nature' as essential inimical and while we have been low in numbers that adverse impact has been either absorbed by the natural systems, or the harm done has accumulated invisibly until breaking point. If we ask ourselves when will there be a global systemic breaking point we might begin to comprehend the damage done.
Our biggest problem is that we don't control our numbers. We could all live in the most frugal way possible, and yet eat the planet bare. However, that is not unconnected with what you say, because the easiest way to get exponential economic growth, is to have an exponential increase in population.
The environmental problems are not 'over-egged'. They are certainly dramatised in the mistaken notion that drama sells the truth. The reality is that it is the accumulation of the under-egged issues that are creeping up on us.
Let me put it this way then, certain environmental problems are definitely over-egged because people have figured out a way to make lots of money (off the poor) by doing so. I don't want to divert this discussion into the supposed risk of global warming, though PM me and I will go into details as to why I do not take that seriously - the subject has been discussed on this forum many times before.
On the other hand, I do take the danger of plastic waste in the oceans seriously. However, I have seen suggestions that this problem has become really seriously recently because we now 'recycle' much of it, although in reality it ends up in Africa, where it is disposed of in the sea! The only real solutions here are technological, because I suspect that without plastic airtight packages, a lot more food would get wasted - which is also a big environmental problem.
We can attend to the dramatic insanities like the danger of nuclear war, and I do not dismiss that hideous potential because of the deranged idiots who have contrived to rise to power. But let me say that in terms of our cultural ecology the fact that we have so many idiots and fools in high government is symptomatic of a profound malaise. In your country ask yourself if Trump is the infection where are the antibodies? Ditto here. Ditto UK and more. The risk of nuclear war is symptomatic of a deep sickness of culture, not a cause.
Well war has been a feature of human history going way back - it is just that now we can do it frighteningly more efficiently.
I'm not sure if we will any of us see May in, the way things are going. I to not see Trump as an infection, though he may have become infected with war hysteria. Just a week ago, he was talking about pulling out of Syria - something he promised in his campaign. He was right -
the US should not be in Syria at all.
Just so you know I have two science degrees - a Masters in Applied Science and a Master of Science Honours - but in Social Ecology which came out of agriculture and is not regarded as a 'proper' science. I don't call myself a scientist in there sense you are applying the term, so I am not offended.
I apologise for that comment, although since I wasn't saying complementary things about scientists, it was actually more of a complement!
I like John Dewey's observation about religion - essentially there is no Religion, just religions and the religious. I say there is no Science, just sciences and scientists. Before we had science we had natural philosophy. I believe materialism, or its captors (commercial and political interests) saw an advantage in removing philosophy from the frame. We tend to forget that the scientists who made the most significant contributions to our knowledge tended to be either overly religious or mystically inclined.
Don't forget that not everything has to happen for a cynical reason. I am sure in the early days of science, most people involved had a heady feeling that materialist explanations were all that were needed. Think of those who discovered all the hormones such as adrenaline that directly affect mood. I could forgive people back then assuming that their mode of action would be solved next. However once it became clear that they bind to sites in the body, it should have become obvious that such explanations just chase an endless chain - never arriving at an explanations of consciousness.
Radin accepts 'mind' or consciousness as the foundation to reality. Drawing that into sciences dominated by materialism is a hard job, but somebody has to do it. Radin seems to have that as a mission.
Yes - I think he sticks close to science to try to make the point that science really is complete as it currently stands.
I have listened to a number of laments sponsored by materialist scientists about the lack of interest in science among the young. It is actually materialism that the young are not into, not science. Compared to when I was growing up kids have been getting mega doses of magic and mythology for decades.
Well, I think that kids can't really explore modern technology in the way kids did 50 years ago. I had a huge pile of parts that I salvaged from scrap televisions, and I learned a lot of electronics that way (fortunately without electrocuting myself because the valves needed potentially lethal voltages to work). I also explored chemistry at home. Nowadays, what can you salvage from a broken phone - pretty much nothing, and most chemicals are unavailable I guess for health and safety reasons.
But also, materialist science no longer looks as shiny as it did.
Science cannot progress to deliver the service we need while it remains shackled to materialism and Radin knows this. Otherwise we have the perpetuation of morally degraded exploitation of natural systems beyond their capacity to recover.
I don't see science in such a utilitarian way - there are plenty of questions that are of no real use, but which help us to understand reality.
David