When I was younger, I learned that science was something pure. But as I've grown older, it seems like science is really about how it's used—and who gets to use it.
When I was younger, I learned that science was something pure. But as I've grown older, it seems like science is really about how it's used—and who gets to use it.
Climate science is pretty close to a "pure" hard science. What's not pure are the sloppy geopolitical and socio-economic predictions built on top of it.
https://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/univ.pdf
Otoh I think Grothendieck's point would be stronger today if his tribe of scientists are expanded or even replaced by "programmers"
Fossil fuelled Data Centers might soon surpass shipping as CO2 producer, given that shipping might even be peaking
Hackerism as the New Universal Church? Then you can hope to go to a (emotionally) warm place on Sunday, everyday
Where the categorical imperative would be: if people want it, build it..
Furthermore, I disagree with the radical ecological claims in the link. Humans might be developing technology that ends up destroying the public commons we call nature. However, I firmly believe there must be a better path to coexistence.