Earth Science - Other

Can Science Save the Planet

Gerald Drueppel's image for:
"Can Science Save the Planet"
Image by: 

The Same Boat

Not if that science has a price tag. I have read various articles where a multitude of theories were suggested, and received an 'A' from myself for creativity alone but almost always failed the cost /benefit analysis phase. The basic motivation of such an analysis is always monetary in nature which easily biases the feasibility of any major scientific endeavor. The methods by which the actual figure is obtained I can only speculate for my specific knowledge on the matter is limited but I can make certain deductions and draw certain conclusions by understanding a basic concept of human nature, which may not be human nature at all but that is a discussion for another time and place.

Phil, the name has been changed to protect his identity, an accomplished scientist in his own right devises a way to curtail global warming by launching millions of tiny sattelites to partially block the suns rays from hitting the earth. He runs it by John who crunches the numbers for him and runs it by some of his buddies who are compelled to modify it on the basis of profit, whether it be immediate or long term. The consideration of the planet takes an automatic back seat to the monetary sensibilities of the few who see this as an opportunity to get rich beyond there wildest dreams while simultaneously be the company or companies involved who took it upon themselves to undertake this gravest of challenges. GE saves the world. To give a basic example of the prestige alone in fulfilling the contract whether or not the long term benefits or problems of such a project have yet to be determined.

Did anyone even consider how a reduced amount of solar radiation would effect the overall ecology of the planet? Did they even consider that increased activity from the sun could destroy our ability to communicate and thus maneuver those millions of tiny satellites who could then be considered a garbage belt, or trash-o-sphere as anyone of poetic mind might coin it. Probably not. Why? Because it was not relevant to the overall assessment of the project. The only true difficulties they faced at least in their mind was how they could get the nations of this world to subsidise it. You don't have to be there to know what happened. You only have to discern the basic nature of all parties involved. If you do this you will be the fly on the wall , you will be every fly on every wall. The nature of the scientist who initially made the proposal is most likely that of a genuine nature. If, he did not succumb to an environment of peer pressure or peace prize piety.

I now give myself as example of an individual who aspired to use science to cure all disease. Through my research I discovered the amazing accomplishments of Doctor Royal Raymond Rife, and theorized, ninety-nine percent of my research is theoretical, that if one where to employ his methods on a global scale by emitting the frequencies needed to destroy various microorganisms through geosynced satellites that could cover the entire surface of the planet then we could indeed eradicate many of the diseases plaguing humankind. I put the theory on the back burner and did not pursue it. Reflecting upon it now. I realized that my information, and all of our information on any subject or matter is incomplete as proved by that brilliant logician Kurt Godel. Upon further research this was made clear to me by discovering that all life on earth serves a purpose and is part of a delicate balance whether we admit it or not. Science can indeed save us but only if that science is working in conjunction with nature and not against it. We have demonstarted time after time that we can never be fully aware of the ramifications of our actions no matter how small or insignificant they may seem. The only thing closest we would have to a guarantee is by adopting a system that works. If its natural, it works.

More about this author: Gerald Drueppel

From Around the Web