Comments
Lord0fHats t1_itd5j38 wrote
The problem is that people who are ignorant, incompetent, and only interested in what they can personal get are usually elected by people who are ignorant, incompetent, and only interested in what they can personally get.
And the great irony of it is, that those very same people are so terrifying in the things they want to do that they basically force us to make sub-optimal (but realistic) choices, or we just get disillusioned and become uninvolved.
So really at the end of the day we're basically left with choices on the sliding scale of ignorance, incompetence, and self-interest, and can rarely if ever make the choices that actually make the most sense. That's how we've ended up with science, technology, and innovation largely being motivated by profit-motive, since it's the one thing most people can get behind.
CelestialFather t1_itdekuz wrote
This is depressing
Kelrakh t1_iteoj5j wrote
I still think you only need a critical mass of elected people who are mostly honest about most things when it doesn't affect their bottom line for things to work out.
E.g. We don't have small children working in coal mines in western nations anymore.
This didn't happen on it own.
Proving that laying out what the world ought to be, rather than accepting what is, did change the world. Otherwise why would the world have any changes for the better at all.
We can't let perfect be the enemy of good nor can we let good be the enemy of slightly-above acceptable. Not if the alternative is a downhill slide.
Lord0fHats t1_iteoyn5 wrote
To be honest, I think this is already generally true.
For every famous 'lying' politician, there's 20 or 30 you've simply never heard of because they're too busy working to get on TV. A lot of the betrayals or let downs people complain about are really idealism running headfirst into reality and the expectations people had of the political system were unrealistic.
perhapsnew t1_ite37jj wrote
So, we need one-party (of competent and interested in collective gain) political system then? Just like in China or North Korea?
Lord0fHats t1_ite3j69 wrote
More like people need to learn to live with the things they can't really do anything about instead of obsessing over how things 'should' be.
Should be won't be a realistic outcome, not even in a dictatorial one-party system because the people who rise to the top in such systems are not anymore competent, rational, or knowledgeable than the bulk of the population. What gets to the top of a one party system is ruthlessness, not competence.
preapocalyptictimes t1_itdahkv wrote
Some of the things being innovated now are very cool and amazing but out of touch with real world pressing problems. For instance, brain-computer interfacing is hot, but is that what science should be focusing on when the global society is facing crisis… all that is swept under the rug or massive distraction placed in front of us.
anotherusercolin t1_itekctg wrote
I think you're underestimating the purposeful intent of power structures (i.e. fossil fuel execs) to make it this way. They rig the system so only they can afford to market their politicians (corrupt campaign finance). They purposefully silence innovation that threatens their power. They're very good at it.
[deleted] t1_ite6vo7 wrote
[deleted]
striegerdt t1_itf5bbr wrote
scientific dogma is a hurdle as well
prototyperspective t1_itrzyf7 wrote
>These problems need a political, not scientific, solution.
Why is policy studies then severely neglected? That's exactly what their report could be about.
Not only are policy studies neglected, work on concrete policy proposals and similar practicality/real-world-related things is neglected too, as is work on building or improving systems that effectively work to solve real problems.
cornerblockakl t1_ite1012 wrote
Of the current crop of elected officials who would you fire? Names please.
nastratin OP t1_itd1glk wrote
Global science research serves the needs of the Global North, and is driven by the values and interests of a small number of companies, governments and funding bodies, finds a major new international study published today.
As such, the authors find, science, technology and innovation research is not focused on the world’s most pressing problems including taking climate action, addressing complex underlying social issues, tackling hunger and promoting good health and wellbeing.
Changing directions: Steering science, technology and innovation for the Sustainable Development found that research and innovation around the world is not focused on meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which are a framework set up to address and drive change across all areas of social justice and environmental issues.
Prelsidio t1_itdiyqk wrote
We have enough tech and science to solve the world's problems. We just don't have politicians to implement it. Remove the fossil fuel lobby and bribes and you will see how fast it gets done.
Ok_Ad816 t1_itefprx wrote
There are so many more parameters and interest groups all throughout the world though which would make it maybe fast, but inevitably violent
resumethrowaway222 t1_ited43l wrote
>taking climate action
Tons of research is focused on this
>promoting good health and wellbeing
Not a science issue
>addressing complex underlying social issues
Not a science issue
>tackling hunger
Mostly not a science issue
CthuluTheGrand t1_itdn1l5 wrote
Who would have thunk? Big money invest in innovation and research that can make them bigger money.
-The_Blazer- t1_itgmnyb wrote
The issue is that the world's major problems are not scientific, they're political. A few western examples (since I'm from the west, but feel free to add your own):
Lack of housing? We know how to build housing perfectly well, but cities keep not building public housing for the people and investors keep snapping up all housing for speculation.
Impossible to build a family? We already have dishwashers, washing machines, roombas and whatnot to make family life much easier than during the 1950s baby boom. The reason people aren't building families are oppressive jobs, impossible economic conditions and garbage urbanism that makes cities a hellscape for children.
Bad broadband Internet? Running fiber optics is well-understood, the issue is telecoms forming cartels and/or pocketing grant money instead of actually using it to build the network.
Lack of food in Africa? We already produce enough food for 10 billion people and we already know how to conserve it long term to ship it elsewhere. The issue is that it's impossible to get it to communities in need due to wars and instability.
Tech is not going to save us this time around.
pauljs75 t1_itgto9t wrote
Homelessness and things like health care are used as the stick to threaten labor into working under less than desirable conditions. If it were purely left into being a technical and resource pursuit, it would have been solved yesterday. Yes some would need to be institutionalized, others would need to be minded enough just to keep their lives in order, and some just need to be saved from addiction or untenable financial problems. But politically handling any of those seems to be a hot potato problem.
It's not an issue of available housing. There's more than enough. A segment of the population is purposely stigmatized and societally stranded to fend for themselves out in the elements. If they even do something as simple as making shelter for themselves, it's torn down by law enforcement. Somehow that is "for their safety" even though nobody seems to care if they die from disease or exposure.
vorpal_potato t1_ithdpvy wrote
> tackling hunger
Hold on a second! Agricultural productivity has risen many times over in the past century thanks to advances in science and technology. We have enough food to actually feed everyone now, which was not the case for most of human history. Where the hell do these guys get off, libeling science and technology like that? Not tackling hunger, my ass.
Leemour t1_itddmuv wrote
This is a capitalism problem, not a STEM research problem?
-The_Blazer- t1_itgmveh wrote
Yep. We have kind of arrived at a good stage in the tech tree, our chief problem is politics.
Surur t1_itdvgb5 wrote
I saw an interesting statistic today which says there were 20,000 papers on climate change, but only 600 papers on low-carbon steel production with hydrogen, despite steel production being 30% of industrial CO2 release.
Maybe we need to be much more focussed on finding high-impact solutions.
Extremely-Bad-Idea t1_itdc6od wrote
No matter how much technology advances, human emotions and behavior never change. Humans are selfish, angry, envious, frightened, and every other negative term you can think of. No one likes to talk about his, but we all know it is true.
Drekels t1_itg9r25 wrote
With the rise of Facebook, google and Amazon, an enormous amount talent has gone towards finding more profitable ways to sell you crap online.
If you look at what software developers are working on, online advertising not being good enough is the core problem facing our society.
herbw t1_itm5cfg wrote
Yeah like if you buy X , you get Y free.
How can it be free, when it's paid for? Like Free shipment, either.
Biggest lies on the net and ads are "it's free" if you pay for the item.
Chambsky t1_itdhlwc wrote
Science is addressing it. Governments/ companies/individuals are not.
[deleted] t1_itewlqu wrote
They just use tech to make themselves rich. Shameful, people and the planet are dying and ZERO vision from those who arrogate leadership in ‘problem solving’. No spirituality.
NotLiberalJustHuman t1_itfeb68 wrote
Imagine that - base the world economy around a few rich guys making the most amount of money possible and wonder why we can’t afford to put humanity first.
SiegelGT t1_itgqgsf wrote
That's because this world is being built to satisfy the greed of the wealthy, it is not being built to support the needs of society. It is this simple of an answer as to why this is the case imo.
jthoff10 t1_itdyot5 wrote
It’s a political and economic issue. The basic research to make the leaps needed to solve these problems is high-risk (from a capital standpoint point) and takes years. We need to elect leaders that shift focus from short-term returns to long-term viability. Will that happen? Probably not lol
Affectionate-Depth66 t1_ite0cv2 wrote
But why would they when there is profit to be made!?
FuturologyBot t1_itd6ury wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/nastratin:
Global science research serves the needs of the Global North, and is driven by the values and interests of a small number of companies, governments and funding bodies, finds a major new international study published today.
As such, the authors find, science, technology and innovation research is not focused on the world’s most pressing problems including taking climate action, addressing complex underlying social issues, tackling hunger and promoting good health and wellbeing.
Changing directions: Steering science, technology and innovation for the Sustainable Development found that research and innovation around the world is not focused on meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which are a framework set up to address and drive change across all areas of social justice and environmental issues.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yav2in/science_technology_and_innovation_is_not/itd1glk/
Rude_Commercial_7470 t1_itdamg0 wrote
Science is making great leaps in the areas of death and destruction. Elected officials know jack shit about science which is a major problem. They also are arrogant as fuck and think they know best even staring into the realization that they know nothing. Basically stupid ppl trying to look smart. Its everywhere because of arrogance, there is no ignorant about it dumb is dumb. An ignorant person can change a dumb one cannot.
Maycrofy t1_itdico5 wrote
I mean, science and tech in the modern age focuses on efficiency, profit and extraction of value. And, if anything, the more global problems there are the more chance there is to monetize these problems.
And thing is this CA foster an anti science ideology where all technologycal advancement and innovation is bad. But how do we apply science to pressing social issues? Like sure we're advancing EV but no one cares about innovating public transportation, about making cheaper and more durable houses or making algorithms for more fair social welfare.
[deleted] t1_itds1ei wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iten34b wrote
[removed]
xeneks t1_itevm6b wrote
If you imagine people as ‘on strike’, who say no to anything that means working more or doing anything themselves, then what you need is habit breaking science.
If their habit is to drive cars and fly planes and watch media that’s entertainment only and fight or battle and say no to things like de-development or negative growth, and they say ‘no’ to plant based diets or eg. Ceasing caffeine or alcohol, or are reluctant to quit damaging but cushy jobs, even if they complain about the low income when they are in the top 1% or 2% of income earners on earth, you’ll be stuck with a lot of people who are nearly impossible to persuade to take the path of leadership. It gets worse when they want to build more things or make everything they have bigger or more luxurious but don’t want to recycle or remove the old things.
You’re essentially stuck needing to break thousands of interlocking habits. Where people are social and those habits are reinforced in families or in friendships and positive change towards ecological sustainability or resource sharing or responsible consumption exists, it’s more than science that is needed.. it’s massive data science. The social interject to break the habit or disrupt it to lift the person to a place where they are no longer the burden to the planet, causing the extinctions, is tricky.
Typically media is used. Eg. A shocking show on animal welfare. Or a report loaded with hyperbole on some catastrophe. Or something creating social terror via financial stress. Or legislation change that enables an industry to be penalised for terrible carelessly destructive to ecosystem activity. What was the latest? Oh - no doubt it’s real. The rain with PFAS PFOS OR PFOA, no longer drinkable, without a measurable risk increase. To hopefully reduce people consuming rain, as it’s so despairingly depressing to see the cataclysmic extinctions seemingly unavoidable, as all the ecosystems are fragmented and lacking water and the climate changes causing many species to loose habitat that includes food or water, as the environmental ranges or biological thresholds of the suffering life is exceeded, and the captive species are unable to migrate.
This is in all places where cities but especially suburban sprawl and farmland exists, and parks are isolated and not connected, and only rarely have sound water resources that would see through drought or seasonal thermal variations.
The ‘interjection’ - to break habits, is not vicious or hurtful or inciting angst, the goal is simply to save the person from their own routine. It’s a ‘how to avoid the tragedy of the commons’ habit breaker. It could be as simple as getting people to stop tea or coffee. Or to choose to drive less or not at all. Or to skip a flight for a HD video link or a recommendation to visit somewhere local that is similar.
The science of breaking routines and habits.. is there one?
hawkwings t1_itgkpea wrote
> Global science research serves the needs of the Global North
This isn't really a problem, because most people live in the Northern hemisphere (Europe, Asia, and North America).
Puffin_fan t1_ito9no6 wrote
The problems won't be solved by technology.
Easy answer.
The only answers will come from education around human ethics.
Which is a bit difficult already, with AI focusing on telling consumers doing bad things is ethical.
ElmerGantry45 t1_itde4n4 wrote
the weapons industries prolong war for money, when they could put their resources together and mine an asteroid for all of humanity. fucking war
Black_RL t1_ite1wyc wrote
Because that kind of research should be mandatory and funded by governments, but they are only concerned about military……
Drewafx t1_ite9etr wrote
like smartphone in the hands of most parts of the world = big impact
need bottom up solutions
once we have robots & AI in homes/communities
maybe world can be more sustainable with food energy resource etc
grow food consume build live create digital economy
right now business money in developed countries is beyond basic needs, which is ofc what we want to do to be happy as grown up humans afaik
problem is price of basic needs are going up with rent utilities etc
so if we invest in sustainable basic needs to be even better that can trickle down to all over the world
SentientHotdogWater t1_itlmrug wrote
This is because in our society innovation is profit driven and there's simply not much profit to be made by solving the world's most urgent problems.
Why cure cancer when you can make 1,000x more money creating the next generation of boner pills?
Why create more sustainable energy efficient electronics when you can make 1,000x more money figuring out how to squeeze an IMAX camera into an iPhone so people can post photo-shoots of themselves online and pretend they're celebrities?
Million2026 t1_ite6390 wrote
Big tech literally failed us so badly during the covid pandemic. It did nothing - except for Zoom who made remote working a wonderful experience.
Big Pharma rescued us.
wwarnout t1_itd25kx wrote
I'd argue that science is addressing the scientific and technological problems, but is being stymied by science denial and willful ignorance. These problems need a political, not scientific, solution.
For starters, let's stop electing people that are ignorant, incompetent, and only interested in what they personally can get out of it.