|
|
|
|
|
by matthewdgreen
6 days ago
|
|
The distinction you make doesn't make any sense to me. Every single one of the technical advances I listed was preceded by a scientific advance, usually a series of them. To take one example: how do you think we discovered the role of Glucagon and then learned to build similar peptides like the receptor agonists in Semaglutide and Tirzepatide? How much (of what we would both consider) "pure science" went into making these drugs possible? The only distinction I would make is that "pure science" has also produced many additional findings that are not immediately useful to me today, but some of them might be in the future. (And that's the only prediction I'm making about the future in this entire thread.) |
|
That's why I bristled at the whiggish march of progress you depicted. You can believe that science is an ever increasing grasp of the truth without being naive about what the outcome of that knowledge might be. We could all still nuke ourselves into oblivion, in the most extreme example.
I know people hate that kind of doom and gloom. I'm just saying that, when you make the jump from "wow, science is amazing, look at what we've discovered" to "wow science is amazing, look what technologies it has unlocked" you are implying an inevitability to technological progress that does not exist.