I guess it comes down to that, then -- people. Actually, it's anime where I find most of the nature > science sentiment; just because a society in RL is focused on it, doesn't mean its media is as well. It might have something to do with the fact that a modern technology of the day obliterated two of their cities in a very epically horrible fashion; I think I heard that mentioned when I was discussing films somewhere with somebody. x_x There are very, very recent examples otherwise that actually do have explicitly good words to say for technological progress alongside valuing the natural world, of which I'm grateful for.
That's true, there are corporations without consciences (ENRON oh god don't get me started on that one). And then yeah, it really comes down to the people, or the group of people, with that kind of antisocial mindset.
Well, maybe not as a whole theme, with the useless science message -- it's more of a leaning, that the pursuit of knowledge is not that valuable if it's not to avert an immediate disaster -- as in, pursuit of knowledge for the sake of discovery (in hopes of on eday averting tragedies we may not even know we can avert, perhaps). The Geek stereotype sitting in their labs and books oblivious to anything but mundane technical things is ubiquitous.
True -- by its nature (grrr, pun NOT intended really >_< ), natural disasters can't be blamed on people per se. Disasters that were a result of something we did certainly can be; it doesn't make sense to say, "the natural world did this so it's the natural world's fault and we should get rid of it!" -- or if is possible to say that, I don't think I've seen it as a justification for destructive technological progress. But I have seen "our technological progress caused all this trouble so we should get rid of it!" And yes, I bring up what you said again -- dude, it's not technology, it's you misusing it and being stupid. That doesn't mean stopping progress is preferable to avoiding disaster! Just like it's not preferable to try to destroy the natural world just because it's dangerous. I guess what that boils down to -- pay attention, learn from your mistakes and then, pick yourself up and continue on again.
...Maybe that's why I feel kinda strongly about this suddenly. It's like people are saying the right thing to do is to give on your pursuit of making the world a better place to live because it's too risky, it could cause considerable damage, so it's not worth the risk. That averting the 'inevitable tragedies' by using loopholes we created (by studying nature itself!), we're somehow illicitly "playing God". That trying to divert from the 'natural way of things' is somehow inherently bad. I don't think it is (nor do I believe you think so either, but I have personally met people who think otherwise).
no subject
That's true, there are corporations without consciences (ENRON oh god don't get me started on that one). And then yeah, it really comes down to the people, or the group of people, with that kind of antisocial mindset.
Well, maybe not as a whole theme, with the useless science message -- it's more of a leaning, that the pursuit of knowledge is not that valuable if it's not to avert an immediate disaster -- as in, pursuit of knowledge for the sake of discovery (in hopes of on eday averting tragedies we may not even know we can avert, perhaps). The Geek stereotype sitting in their labs and books oblivious to anything but mundane technical things is ubiquitous.
True -- by its nature (grrr, pun NOT intended really >_< ), natural disasters can't be blamed on people per se. Disasters that were a result of something we did certainly can be; it doesn't make sense to say, "the natural world did this so it's the natural world's fault and we should get rid of it!" -- or if is possible to say that, I don't think I've seen it as a justification for destructive technological progress. But I have seen "our technological progress caused all this trouble so we should get rid of it!" And yes, I bring up what you said again -- dude, it's not technology, it's you misusing it and being stupid. That doesn't mean stopping progress is preferable to avoiding disaster! Just like it's not preferable to try to destroy the natural world just because it's dangerous. I guess what that boils down to -- pay attention, learn from your mistakes and then, pick yourself up and continue on again.
...Maybe that's why I feel kinda strongly about this suddenly. It's like people are saying the right thing to do is to give on your pursuit of making the world a better place to live because it's too risky, it could cause considerable damage, so it's not worth the risk. That averting the 'inevitable tragedies' by using loopholes we created (by studying nature itself!), we're somehow illicitly "playing God". That trying to divert from the 'natural way of things' is somehow inherently bad. I don't think it is (nor do I believe you think so either, but I have personally met people who think otherwise).