A Google search for "environmental costs of science" yields nothing. Why?
"Ecological costs of science" also yields nothing.
Science takes place in a physical vacuum? The land and materials used to build labs; the electricity used to power observations and experiments; the fuel burned to transport lab equipment, materials, etc.; the ink and paper used to print scientific papers, journals, books, etc.; the waste (radioactive, biological, etc.) from science activities--none of that impacts the environment, ecosystems, etc.?
I discovered a book recently about the geography of science--about the spatial patterns of science activities and how that impacts individuals, communities, regions, etc. But other than that there seems to be nothing about the environmental, psychological, social, spiritual, etc. costs of science.
I am not talking about scientism. The costs of scientism are well documented. I am simply talking about the everyday conduct of science.
Those of us born and raised in the post-Industrial West have had it constantly pounded into our heads from the moment we were born what an ingenious blessing the creation and spread of modern science has been for humanity. But, gosh, I did not know that the unprecedented brilliance of science included having absolutely no negative impact on the Earth.
Science takes place in a physical vacuum? The land and materials used to build labs; the electricity used to power observations and experiments; the fuel burned to transport lab equipment, materials, etc.; the ink and paper used to print scientific papers, journals, books, etc.; the waste (radioactive, biological, etc.) from science activities--none of that impacts the environment, ecosystems, etc.?
I discovered a book recently about the geography of science--about the spatial patterns of science activities and how that impacts individuals, communities, regions, etc. But other than that there seems to be nothing about the environmental, psychological, social, spiritual, etc. costs of science.
I am not talking about scientism. The costs of scientism are well documented. I am simply talking about the everyday conduct of science.
Those of us born and raised in the post-Industrial West have had it constantly pounded into our heads from the moment we were born what an ingenious blessing the creation and spread of modern science has been for humanity. But, gosh, I did not know that the unprecedented brilliance of science included having absolutely no negative impact on the Earth.
Comments (20)
What do you mean by everyday conduct of science? You are probably not yielding results because it is so broad. Are you talking about the environmental impact of technology?
A Google search for "environmental costs of technology" yields 4 results. Not what I am talking about.
Educating/training scientists. Conducting research. Press conferences, seminars, conventions, etc. Publishing papers, journals, books, etc. None of that has any negative impact on the environment? Electricity is/was not used? Gasoline is/was not burned? Materials are/were not extracted? Land is/was not developed? Trees are/were not cleared? Wildlife is/was not harmed? Non-renewable resources are/were not consumed? Waste is/was not generated?
Amazing.
I'll check it out.
I already answered this.
I want to know the environmental impact of a specific enterprise: science.
I am sure that if I wanted to find sources addressing the environmental impact of, say, religion, I would not have much difficulty. I would probably find sources saying things like, oh, the rise of megachurches in the U.S. has resulted in increased energy consumption.
I am not finding anything about that with respect to science. Why?
What I am trying to say to you is that there are certainly sources, but you would need to condense what you mean when you say science because the subject is so broad it will yield either too much or none at all. There is no specific enterprise "science" but that science is a term that explains a number of things and thus you would need to condense that search to those things. So, the impact on the environment and energy consumption, even then you will have oil, gas, agriculture, supply chain, even further still politics, economics, law etc. When I said that you had not answered the question, what I was attempting to ascertain is what you mean by Science.
Yes.
Here is an article that touches on my concern.
But it is talking about the social costs of science, not the ecological costs or costs to the natural environment.
The Wikipedia article is packed with interesting material.
Wow, a Western philosopher criticizing scientists' condescending attitude towards astrology. I never imagined ever hearing that.
I know of I=PAT and I remember learning of it - it was very difficult managing the multiple variables.
One problem is the way search prioritizes the words in a query. "costs", "environmental", and "science" is likely to be interpreted as a query about the science of environmental costs, rather than the environmental costs of science.
Have you tried taking the title of a good result (or authors names) and used it as a search term?
Have you tried using scholar.google?
"Ecological costs of science" is not something that is going to be the topic of a lot of leading scientists or leading science journal articles (science might be shooting itself in the foot). Remember also that Google returns results on the basis of site visit frequency. So, if there is one web site that precisely answers your question and gets a hundred hits a year, it will be buried very deeply in the results page.
The kind of results you want won't be plentiful, and you will have to hunt in the margins, consulting science dissident sites, cantankerous authors suspicious of science, and so on. [s]Radicals[/s] troublemakers or renegades in other words.
It isn't clear whether you are talking about pure science (CERN) or technology (Silicon Valley). I did come across an article about the environmental consequences of an Indian Neutrino project in a trial search, but it was inaccessible.
Good luck.
Query: "Science damages the environment"
I am assuming a negative effect of science would be the large quantities of hormones, antibiotics, antidepressants, and other pharmaceuticals being pissed or just flushed into the waterways of the world, having god-knows-what consequences on the creatures who live there, not to mention all the other chemicals being dumped. (Like caffeine: There is a lot of caffeine in the Mississippi River by the time it gets to New Orleans. Consequences? Fish with insomnia? Who the hell knows? Naproxen and some other OTC drugs have been found in rainwater and snow!
But I'm talking about a historical perspective.
The people who control the flow of information in society never miss an opportunity to remind us of (or to deny) the role of producers and consumers of mass-produced consumer goods in the destruction of the Earth. Scientists--with their rarely-questioned authority--are almost always the mouthpieces of those reminders.
My point is that the role of the everyday activities of science itself in the destruction of the Earth is, meanwhile, not on any radar. I'm not talking about the technology that is a byproduct of science. The environmental consequences of such technology are well documented and no secret to anybody who has at least a high school education and consumes the news media. I am talking about the facilities, activities, etc. of pure science.
We are constantly reminded of the benefits of science. When are we told about the costs?
I hear plenty about how people like me and the companies we work for and consume the products of are destroying the Earth. But I do not recall ever hearing much of any such thing about militaries.
U.S. Navy sonar harming whales is the most that I recall any big deal being made out of.
Has pure science--the work of Darwin, Einstein, etc.--been harmless to the Earth?
Again, I am not talking about the byproducts of science, such as technology. I am talking about science activities in and of themselves.