Luddites unite!

[redbrunja]

[Error: unknown template qotd]
My answer is a very qualified but resounding YES. 

First of all, I don't want to see any BSG-finale moronic rejection of life-saving technology or refusal to allow science to advance – but I would adore it we thought hard about whether or not certain advances would better our lives.

I already think that a lot of people's quality of life has been degraded by our (United States, speaking from what I know) dependence/addiction to television and computers, our screwy relationship with food, the loss/absence of a decent food culture, and a stunted interaction with nature and our own bodies. Right now there are already movements working against these trends (the Slow Food Movement, No Child Left Inside) and I would like to see more of them, until our culture has a balance between interacting with technology and interacting with the larger world.

Comments

[qualapec.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. I think that TVs and computers are great communications devices and I would never recommend humankind return to sticks and stones and the Pony Express, but I agree very much that our culture needs more balance.

I'm taking an environmental issues class right now, and while a lot of it is about the intrinsic value of nature (the idea that nature simply has the right to exist), I also think that environmental policies will not ultimately be successful unless people really learn the value of having vegetation around and appreciate it. Children in particular need to have fun experiences in wild places and just learn how BADASS the environment is.

However, this question brings up something that I also think is important: the flawed American view of science and how it ultimately stands in the way of progress. As a culture, we don't have a very good understanding of science or its value. I think most of the population has an automatic aversion to the idea: either it's seen as an enemy of their faith or they think scientists are insane, antisocial people who are so driven by their ambition that they forsake human morality.

I think of "I Am Legend" *SPOILERS FOR IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT* (the movie, I haven't read the book), where a cure for cancer leads to a zombie/vampire apocalypse. Big surprise, the answer at the end has strong divine connotations. It's a good example of a theme I see throughout our culture: scientist has accomplished something that seems really cool, turns out that that achievement is unnatural and leads to the collapse of civilization, God helps people find cure. It's a trope that bothers me so much.

That's one reason why I REALLY like the series Sanctuary on SyFy. Amanda Tapping's character is amazing- she's a brilliant scientist who uses her immortality and vast knowledge in a way that will genuinely improve the lives of others. I feel she does so many things that run counter to popular beliefs about science, but lo and behold, she's still portrayed as a hero.

Basically, I think we need more portrayals like THAT to remind people that science isn't some complex, unapproachable thing that just wants to ruin our fun and/or destroy us all with it's "arrogance".

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

, I also think that environmental policies will not ultimately be successful unless people really learn the value of having vegetation around and appreciate it. Children in particular need to have fun experiences in wild places and just learn how BADASS the environment is.

Exactly. Otherwise, they will think oil>pristine wild places, simply because they don't know any better.

I think most of the population has an automatic aversion to the idea: either it's seen as an enemy of their faith or they think scientists are insane, antisocial people who are so driven by their ambition that they forsake human morality.

This is true, and then it's mixed with this idea that science will solve our problems in the future (figure out how to clean air, etc, so we don't need to fix the problems we have NOW if we don't like the solution.

That's one reason why I REALLY like the series Sanctuary on SyFy. Amanda Tapping's character is amazing- she's a brilliant scientist who uses her immortality and vast knowledge in a way that will genuinely improve the lives of others. I feel she does so many things that run counter to popular beliefs about science, but lo and behold, she's still portrayed as a hero.

Awesome! And have you watched any of the stargates? Because I'm curious to see where you would put those shows on the science is bad/science will save us scale.

[qualapec.livejournal.com]

This is true, and then it's mixed with this idea that science will solve our problems in the future (figure out how to clean air, etc, so we don't need to fix the problems we have NOW if we don't like the solution.

Right, I agree that people either detest science, or- as you say- not worry about changing now because someone will just FIX it later. It really speaks to a very lazy human mindset of "I'm just gonna let someone else clean up my clusterfuck".

Awesome! And have you watched any of the stargates? Because I'm curious to see where you would put those shows on the science is bad/science will save us scale.

Stargate SG-1 is pretty good about it (I'm not commenting on Atlantis, simply because I don't like that series NEARLY as much). SG-1 uses science as both a tool for exploration and problem solving. I always thought the series was very balanced on both counts- you always had characters supplying arguments for either side (science/exploration, safety). There were always problems that arose from discovering strange new technologies or ancient tablets, but a solution was always found- sometimes it involved sealing away the discovery entirely, and sometimes it involved making it less effective, or just learning how to correctly use it. I'd say it's about the same as the original Star Trek in that sense. Overall, I found the series very balanced with the way it looked at science. Also, it gets brownie points for making the people in the government who were like "Fuck NO! Shut the 'gate down it's HORRIBLE and it puts us at RISK and we need to bury our heads in the SAND!" look like douchebags.

Oh, and the characters Daniel Jackson and Samantha Carter were great examples of scientists because they REALLY enjoyed what they were doing. The show did a great job of capturing their love for discovery- and whenever you have likeable characters who really fangasm over their subject matter, there will always be fans who go "I think it's cool, too!"

As far as Atlantis is concerned...I never got into it. I felt like it was less military than SG-1, the writers focused more on the "drama" aspects of it, it's too glossed over, and it just didn't strike the same chords with me that SG-1 did. However, from a technology aspect I really feel like the characters didn't have to WORK for what they had. In SG-1, the audience SEES the firefight that takes place to get that first Goa'uld death glider back to Earth to study, and SEES the problems that arise while learning to fly it. In Atlantis...they're just handed the alien technology, really. Or at least that's my opinion. A lot of people liked Atlantis, so they may have seen something I didn't.

The only time I ever really watched it was when Samantha Carter joined the cast...and then when her character left so did I.

[redbrunja.livejournal.com]

It really speaks to a very lazy human mindset of "I'm just gonna let someone else clean up my clusterfuck".

It really does.

And your opinions about the stargates match neatly up with mine. The original stargate just didn't hook me, and then Atlantis just pissed me off with some racial and gender issues.

Oh, and the characters Daniel Jackson and Samantha Carter were great examples of scientists because they REALLY enjoyed what they were doing. The show did a great job of capturing their love for discovery- and whenever you have likeable characters who really fangasm over their subject matter, there will always be fans who go "I think it's cool, too!"

Yes! Sam was adorable when she would geek out about things.