👨‍🔬📖 The science forum 🔬👩‍🎓 Everyday life and customs

Thank you everybody who gave reactions!! It is a SCARY topic i think!! 🙄🙄😬 I did not know about bacteria in the ice of the Northpole because i thought it was too cold for them to survive and they would be frozen and so dead i thought. And @mabah is right I think about climate change and that we need to repair that as much as possible. 🙏 It is comfortable what @Lianshen writes that it will not make people extinct. But still it can be dangerous.

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a SCARY science question, but I am curious what you think:

➡️ Do you think that there will be a virus one time that can kill most people on earth? 🧬🦠🧫🧪

I dont mean the Corona discussion, because that is a difficult topic that people dont agree with each other. BUTTTT do you think that there can be a DIFFERENT virus that can perhaps kill everybody? Or will we be too quick to make a medicine for it? Or will it not happen? I hope it will not happen of course! 😛 Thank you for your science answers about this challenge!! 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

“If all viruses suddenly disappeared, the world would be a wonderful place for about a day and a half, and then we’d all die – that’s the bottom line,” says Tony Goldberg, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “All the essential things they do in the world far outweigh the bad things.”

“If all viruses suddenly disappeared, the world would be a wonderful place for about a day and a half, and then we’d all die – that’s the bottom line,” says Tony Goldberg, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “All the essential things they do in the world far outweigh the bad things.”

So he means there are also good viruses that you need or you die? Or that everything needs to be the same also bad viruses because they are important? 🧬🦠🧫

So he means there are also good viruses that you need or you die? Or that everything needs to be the same also bad viruses because they are important? 🧬🦠🧫

Actually there is nothing like "good or bad" viruses but pathogenic or nonpathogenic viruses. The pathogenic viruses to human, might be "bad" for humanity but not for rest of the Earth. We have a certain tendency for "human-centric" existance and focus on the pathogenic ones. That's far from the law of "equilibrium" in the Earth.

You can have a look in the entire article if you are curious: The Article

Thank you very much @diogenes_cask!! I will look at the article because i had NO idea about that. And some words that you say i still dont know but i can maybe find it in the article i hope!! 🙂 But I have to read it tomorrow because i still have some homework for tomorrow i have to make 🙁

For the science forum this is a VERY interesting topic that @Sarahsalah27 wrote in the what happened today forum!!

I copy it here:

Speaking of the movie Frankenstein, I want to talk about the original novel by Mary Shelley.

I really consider that novel one of my favorite novels because it is not just an ordinary horror story, but rather carries deep human meanings and philosophical ideas about life and ambition.

The novel tells the story of ambitious scientist Victor Frankenstein who creates a creature using parts of dead bodies. But he abandons him because of his terrifying appearance, causing the creature to suffer loneliness, rejection, and search for revenge.

What distinguishes the novel is that it raises important questions:

Does science have limits?

How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

It also sheds light on feelings of loneliness and abandonment, and makes us sympathize with the “monster” despite his appearance. I love this novel because it combines horror and philosophy, and presents a story full of human feelings and conflicts.

It makes us think about the consequences of our actions and the meaning of humanity.

So we have two very difficult questions and I hope that all PPG science smarties can maybe say what they think about them:

1️⃣ Does science have limits?

2️⃣ How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

I think that science has limits of what is possible or not on earth. But also what science can do now and maybe not yet in the future.

I think the creature is for me the hero because he does not deserve to be treated with loneliness and rejection. For me it is not a disaster but a living thing like a human or animal. So it deserves help!! But science also made super powerful weapons and that can also be a disaster. 🙁 And because they can make so many victims it is maybe also irresponsible but that maybe depends also on other things.

The nice post of @Sarahsalah27 is maybe nice for this forum!! I hope that others will say what they think about the science statements!! Thank you very much!! 🙏🙏

1- Does science have limits? I assume that we are talking about "ethical limits." This question is basically a non-sequitar. First of all, we need to define "the science" accurately. In simpliest manner, science is a tool fixing the current knowledge. Logically we can't expect a tool dressed by ethics or morals. Ethics or morals are the concerns for philosophy in general, science's unique concern is nothing but methodology. On the other hand science is the cummilative knowledge confirmed by pragmatic decisions made according to "social ethos." That's why we have no sympathy for experimental Nazi doctors in the past. Science tells us what is "real", it doesn't tell us what is "true". Then we need a safe lock on this giant box. A discipline telling us what is "true." That discipline is called Epistemology.

Now, let's engage with the "Frankenstein" case in a nutshell: "The creature is the product of reason, but becomes a monster in the moral sense because it is abandoned by an "irresponsible science" that neglects the consequences of its labor." From the vantage of Rousseauean Romanticism, the monster can be seen as a specimen of natural man originally uncorrupted by the conventions of civilization. Victor, by contrast, embodies the essential corruption of highly civilized man, who uses his mind and knowledge to manipulate nature and abuses rationality in order to justify his transgressions against nature and humanity. According to scientific methodology result is "real", according to social ethos result is "unacceptable", according to epistemologic approach, result is "not true." That is why question is a non-sequitar.

For the science forum this is a VERY interesting topic that @Sarahsalah27 wrote in the what happened today forum!!

I copy it here:

So we have two very difficult questions and I hope that all PPG science smarties can maybe say what they think about them:

1️⃣ Does science have limits?

2️⃣ How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

I think that science has limits of what is possible or not on earth. But also what science can do now and maybe not yet in the future.

I think the creature is for me the hero because he does not deserve to be treated with loneliness and rejection. For me it is not a disaster but a living thing like a human or animal. So it deserves help!! But science also made super powerful weapons and that can also be a disaster. 🙁 And because they can make so many victims it is maybe also irresponsible but that maybe depends also on other things.

The nice post of @Sarahsalah27 is maybe nice for this forum!! I hope that others will say what they think about the science statements!! Thank you very much!! 🙏🙏

Thank you soo much 🥰🥰❤❤ @Yue_ I want to answer both questions.

For the first question-

does science have limits?

Yes, science has limits, which are moral and human limits that prevent us from crossing what might cause harm or disaster.

In Frankenstein, Victor crosses those boundaries when he creates a creature without thinking about responsibility for it or the consequences of his action.

The result has been great tragedies, demonstrating that ignoring the limits of science can lead to devastating results

The second question:

Can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

Irresponsible decisions lead to disasters when their consequences are not thought through.

In Frankenstein, Victor creates a creature without taking responsibility for it, making the creature feel rejected and alone, driving him to seek revenge and cause tragedies.

The novel shows how the pursuit of knowledge or achievements without moral awareness leads to destructive results.