- #1
lubuntu
- 467
- 2
I've started to figure out that my drive to do science is essentially derived from the fact that I am at essence a nihilist. By this I mean that I can see no intrinsic meaning to my life -besides what I attach post-facto- and can see no thing that is a more fundamental level worth doing than to examine the origin of the universe and how it came to be that we arrived in our situation.
I see myself as having bearing no responsibility of the world I was born into and having no obligation to change it. Frankly, I don't see humanity going in any direction that I see worthwhile within my lifetime. The number and magnitude of our societal problems are simply too complex to resolved any time soon and it seems pretty clear that we are still in the midst of a civilization changing epoch and that it may continue for awhile, or be cut short by humans killing themselves. While I do have some ideas of how I wish civilization could/would work they are always viewed as extremely naive-and in someways are- but I cannot reconcile my idealism with our world.
The point is this viewpoint seems to contrast greatly with some other scientifically minded people I may meet that obtain their scientific drive from a need or want to better humanity. Somehow this makes me feel somewhat guilty but at the same time I view the sole purpose of science to distill objective truths about the universe from empirical observation without any value judgement.
What is the majority opinion in this regard in the scientific community? Obviously some areas of science are more geared towards benefiting humanity than others, are there some fields where the assertion or denial of this duty are explicitly stated as an important part of the field?
I see myself as having bearing no responsibility of the world I was born into and having no obligation to change it. Frankly, I don't see humanity going in any direction that I see worthwhile within my lifetime. The number and magnitude of our societal problems are simply too complex to resolved any time soon and it seems pretty clear that we are still in the midst of a civilization changing epoch and that it may continue for awhile, or be cut short by humans killing themselves. While I do have some ideas of how I wish civilization could/would work they are always viewed as extremely naive-and in someways are- but I cannot reconcile my idealism with our world.
The point is this viewpoint seems to contrast greatly with some other scientifically minded people I may meet that obtain their scientific drive from a need or want to better humanity. Somehow this makes me feel somewhat guilty but at the same time I view the sole purpose of science to distill objective truths about the universe from empirical observation without any value judgement.
What is the majority opinion in this regard in the scientific community? Obviously some areas of science are more geared towards benefiting humanity than others, are there some fields where the assertion or denial of this duty are explicitly stated as an important part of the field?