Dr. Michio Kaku America Has A Secret Weapon

[DeSwiss]

Run time: 04:05 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM   Posted on YouTube: August 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: The72tube Views on YouTube: 42443   Posted on DU: August 23, 2011 By DU Member: DeSwiss Views on DU: 5106

 
I don't necessarily disagree with Dr. Kaku, but I hate it when scientists rattle off so-called "accomplishments" in science while ignoring all its failures and outright detriments. And if you don't understand what I'm referring to, then go into your kitchen and take out a box of your favorite processed food and try to pronounce the all chemicals they've put in there that you never heard of (vegetarians and vegans this doesn't apply to you). Sure, the gasoline engine was great. Only now we know it's killing our planet with its fumes. Nuclear power is cheap, until you factor in its dangers and the fact that no one and I mean no one wants the waste. Not to mention the meltdowns. Like the three we've got going in Japan. And don't even get me started on the damned "medicines" -- the cures that they come up with to reduce the impact of the other shit they've already invented and put into our environment. Bis-phenol-A, BGH, the antibiotic cocktails for the factory-raised animals many eat. And on and on.

Then ask yourself why all the new diseases, the cancers and the allergies are happening now and have been since the advent of science's "miracles" came exploding into our lives following WWII.


- The two are connected......

[Badsam]

1. Although I normally like listening to him,

I think he is a government talking head. He knows a lot more than he shares with the public. He knew all along that Fukishima Diiachi was a disaster but he sat back while Japan and this government dumbed us down with BS.

[DeSwiss]

4. They all are goverment/industry talking heads....

...they have to be if they want a "career" in science in this country.

[90-percent]

8. Uh, I disagree with that

Dr. Kaku was talking about Fukashima early on with any news outlet that would have him. He had a dire message and basically said the whole deal is much worse than the governments are telling. My wife DVR'd him on big outlets like GMA with his dire message and warnings intact.

I think he was one of the foremost truth tellers about Fukashima to this very day.

-90% Jimmy

[fascisthunter]

9. this is true...

[liberation]

20. Yeah, except for the fact that he has been both: very public and critical of the events in Fukushima

you're like correct and stuff...

[TheWraith]

2. And I hate it when people imagine that life was better before science.

"Then ask yourself why all the new diseases, the cancers and the allergies are happening now and have been since the advent of science's "miracles" came exploding into our lives following WWII."

I hate it when people forget that we had cancers, and allergies, and diseases, in VASTLY greater quantities and severity before the modern era. I hate it when people forget that our lifespan is now decades longer than it used to be, infant mortality is a micro-fraction of what it was, people don't get killed by childhood diseases or treatable illness, and we can actually fight cancer as opposed to even the simplest kind being an automatic death sentence.

[fascisthunter]

10. wrong! We have more cancer now, birth defects and child mortality

because of man-made toxins, radiation and pollution, and it is getting worse. We also have a much LARGER population so saying we have less of each is just flat out wrong.

[Confusious]

17. This chart disagrees with you

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8...

In 1847 Thomas A. Edison is born on February 11th in Ohio, USA, Alexander Graham Bell is Born on March 3rd in Edinburgh Scotland. Born just three weeks apart they were both triumphant over the dangerously high Infant mortality rates of their time. A harsh world took the lives of nearly 25% of all infants born during this period.

http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/bluetelephone/html...

Who says ignorance is only for teabaggers?

[liberation]

21. Overall life expectancy has increased dramatically in Western Countries.

So the data seems to contradict your position.

Yes, pollution etc are significant negative issues. But there is a difference between dying from a simple tooth infection as a teenager, a common occurrence not long ago, and being diagnosed of cancer at 70 years of age.

[The Wielding Truth]

3. Wait. I think he is talking about a visa that allows the brightest science engineers

to come and work in the USA.

[DeSwiss]

6. You don't have to wait.....

...that's exactly what he's talking about.

They use the H-1 visa in order to come to America to get an education that will later allow them to work, and to ultimately end up doing and inventing they very things I mentioned above.

Making new advents without any ethical responsibility for the impacts is not a good thing. Okay? Because the schools are under the thumb to industry and government.

Those impacts are not always good ones.

Now, comprende?

[SurfingScientist]

12. ZOMG TEH SCIENTEST IS ALL ONE CONSPRIACEEE!!!!!1111!!ONE

Seriously?

Everything you do not understand is necessarily evil and a conspiracy "under someone's thumb".

You have no idea what H1Bs and foreign students are good for. Guess what, Americans don't study science anymore. Those who can do math need to come from somewhere.

You have no idea how science works. You have no idea what drives people to become scientists - which is usually curiosity and ideals of making the world a better place.

Does some of this get corrupted along the way? Sure. Does this mean science, medicine and education are all bad instruments to enslave us all, poison us all, and make money for a few? Bullshit.

I don't know how old you are, but chances are >50% that without modern medicine or vaccines, you wouldn't walk this planet anymore because a simple childhood disease like the measles, or food poisoning due to lack of preservation methods, would have killed you before your 2nd birthday.

Science made fertilizers and productive crops so we don't have famines twice a decade. It made the internet and cell phones so that information became more freely available, and see what it does for democracy.

Have science and technical progress given us problems? Sure. But guess what, in the real world, people want modern medicine, electricity and whatnot that allows them to live past 20 years of age, not die of cold or heat, and read DU on their laptop. If we want to cure or avoid cancer, we need the research to understand what causes it, and NOT curse medical research based on the unfounded assumption that it's the drugs, vaccines etc that make us sick. Most allow us to live longer and better - some with bad side effects, but then we need more science to find a better drug.

Seriously, the uninformed "Left" hating on science, assuming it is all part of an evil corporate conspiracy, is not better than the Teabaggers hating science because it is librul stuff against gawd.

That is all.

[DeSwiss]

22. What a load of pitiful crap - goodbye. n/t

[SurfingScientist]

26. Uhm, yeah. Spewing hate and insults paints a certain picture...

... of you.

Your post is really guided by blind hatred, based on selective (and partially wrong) half-knowledge that you use to fuel certain prejudices.

I am a professional scientist and know the workings of research, education, schools, funding, dependencies, internal politics, ideals and corruption thereof, pretty well. "Science" is just like anything else that involves humans - it mirrors the good and bad in people.

It is always the easy way to point fingers at a group of people, a system, or whatever and declare them 'evil', 'greedy', 'corrupt'. Usually, things are a lot more complex than that. Experts on Geo-and Ocean Science may have written warnings about Fukushima's exposure to quakes and tsunamis in their reports, then that same report may have been used by architects and engineers to construct the plants to standards that other people / scientists *thought* would withstand the worst quake/tsunami that would be expected in that area. Regulations and administration are rigid, and scientists have only so much influence. Japan's decision to build nuke plants was not made in a University lab, but in a conference room of dept of energy, or similar. Nuclear physics was discovered because people are naturally curious and wanted to know how the world works. You can't predict what fundamental science leads to. By your logic, we should never have invented the wheel or learned how to control fire, because both have been used in wars ever since.

[The Wielding Truth]

25. Well, really he said they were already educated better than here and

we need to be producing the best and most proficient experts. Whether they are used to create destructive or creative projects is not his point. IMHO.
Just sayin'. You can be upset about the usage of foreign intelligence,I just think he was saying that we should develop more of our own high tech intelligence people.

[Confusious]

27. I went to school

Does that mean I'm under the corporate thumb? drunken the kool aid? Ate the brownies? swallowed the blue pill?

[eShirl]

5. Science bad. Got it.

[DeSwiss]

7. Fukushima agrees with you. n/t

[swilton]

11. Totally agree that there's a misplaced emphasis on the hard

sciences.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein referred to this...

We need the creators and moralists as well as we need the technicians. After all, we can get to the moon but we still don't have peace on earth.

[xocet]

13. "...and that no one should ever have left the oceans." --Douglas Adams (H2G2), page 1

Dear DeSwiss:

I have to disagree with your analysis.

There is a distinction that needs to be made. Science is knowledge and the pursuit thereof. This found knowledge - in the form of technology - can be used carefully or with callous disregard. Is it the science or the technology with which you have the problem? It seems that it is the end-form technology and the careless use of said end-form technology. So, in my mind, your problem is ultimately a lack of perspective coupled with a political problem - both of which could be solved with better education for the public. After all, is it not good that humanity found a way to fight polio, small pox, the black death, etc?


Now, here are a few comments that regarding the posted video:

Examples of progress are as Dr. Kaku noted: steam power, lasers, transistors, etc. These are applications of thermodynamics (in the field of mechanics), quantum mechanics (in the field of optics) and quantum mechanics (in the field of electronics). Of course, the history of the development of thermodynamics runs the other way in that it was formally developed after the steam engine. (Question: Should one prefer Watt's or Newcomen's steam engine? Is more knowledge a factor in making this decision? How can one get this knowledge?)


Condemning science is to condemn the following:

Speaking
Writing
Counting
Numbers
Arithmetic
Geodesy
Geometry
Trigonometry
Algebra
Linear Algebra
Calculus
Etc.
(However, more in this direction heads largely into the direction of abstract mathematics.)

Astronomy
Newtonian Mechanics
Optics
Thermodynamics
Chemistry
Electricity and Magnetism
Special Relativity
General Relativity
Cosmology
Quantum Mechanics
Microbiology
Medicine
Quantum Electrodynamics
Quantum Chromodynamics
Gauge Theory
Electroweak Theory
The Standard Model

All of these areas have seen significant progress within the last 3000 years with many of these areas only coming into existence in the last 500 years if not the last 110 years. Tremendous progress has been made in the last 110 years: i.e., the structure of DNA was only found 57 years ago.

Science is the foundation for progress or the "engine of progress" as it was stated. One should not confuse the nature of technology or the use of technology with what science is. There are very few - if any - cartoonish "mad scientists" out there. There are, though, plenty of political hacks and greedy capitalists out there who do not care about the results of their respective quests for power and wealth.

What "failures and outright detriments" came from mankind's discovery that the Earth is not flat?
What "failures and outright detriments" is trigonometry responsible for?
What "failures and outright detriments" is Lagrangian mechanics responsible for?
What burden for "failures and outright detriments" does Sophus Lie bear? Do algebraic errors count?
What "failures and outright detriments" is astronomy responsible for?
How has astronomy negatively impinged on anyone but the astrologers or those who do not think that there was a moon landing?
What "failures and outright detriments" are the result of the development of the theories behind the PET scanner?
What "failures and outright detriments" are the result of Mendeleev's work?
What "failures and outright detriments" are the result of Mendel's work?
What "failures and outright detriments" are the result of Schroedinger's work?

Lastly, if you were to have no answers to the above questions, would your position still be tenable? Is your position tenable?

Discursively yours,

xocet

P.S. The final part of your argument is that curious:

"...why all the new diseases, the cancers and the allergies are happening now and have been since the advent of science's "miracles" came exploding into our lives following WWII."

Now can be dropped from your statement - when else would we observe and be aware of them?

There always have been diseases and maladies.
(http://books.google.com/books?id=GyE8Qt-kS1kC&pg=PA23&d... ) Bacteria evolve. Viruses mutate. People who were alive around WWI saw the Influenza pandemic. Europe saw the Black Death several times (http://books.google.com/books?id=5QK_5hVmDz4C&printsec=... )

Cancer can be understood from a microbiological viewpoint. (http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Gastric-Cancers-Timothy-W... )

The last part regarding " 'miracles'...exploding into our lives..." is simply a hyperbolic statement. Less hyperbolic would be the words 'seemingly observed'.

The reference to WWII can be dropped for reasons similar to the above comment regarding when the observations could be made. Now is the only when we have.

[DeSwiss]

23. I'm not condemning science.....

...I am questioning the morals or lack thereof of the scientists. They have no ethos that respects life because they do not control their own profession. That is the purview of TPTB. But they are responsible for giving them the control of their knowledge and discoveries.

For example, in Fukushima it was scientists who concocted the idea and then carried out the building of nuclear reactors on top of fault lines. Six reactors. How arrogant and dismissive of human life can one be? Likewise, they did this in an area with historical markers from the 1700s designating the location of where the last major tsunami stopped. So they knew about that as well, even though they are now claiming ignorance of this fact.




And now we have three nuclear reactor melt-throughs and three cooling ponds with 20 years worth of spent nuclear fuel rods spewing radiation all over the planet and no one knows how to stop it. None of this could not have happened without scientists.

I am saying is that we cannot afford to continue shining a light ONLY upon science's accomplishments -- and then absolve them and/or ignore the deleterious impacts they have, and are still having upon our lives and society in-general.

If science has earned the kudos for their successes, then they must also take responsibility for its failures and the damage it does. It must become the underlying ethos of their profession to honor the harm principle. No matter how noble it sounds, the pursuit of knowledge does not give license to scientists to cause suffering and death.

- Everyone's right to life trumps that......

[xocet]

28. You make some good points. It is late here. I'll reread your reply tomorrow. Thanks. n/t

[xocet]

29. I reread your post and while I agree that technology can result in harm - dynamite for example....

I would like to present the following argument:

Anyone can pick up a rock, throw it, and observe its trajectory. If one picks up a flat rock, one has the choice to either skip it across a pond or throw it at, say, a boulder. In both cases, the person doing the throwing and observing is doing basic science without the mathematical apparatus that allows for quantifying the quality of the predictions that can be made. That is, one may suspect that holding a rock at about such-and-such an angle might allow for more skips than a much greater or lesser angle, but in this example the effect of the orientation of the rock is only expressed qualitatively not quantitatively. Science is still done even though mathematics has been excluded here.

So, one can pick up a bunch of similarly flat rocks and skip them. One learns how to do this to achieve the "best" effect which here would be the greatest number of skips. In learning this, one learns how hard to throw, how close the first skip should be, how to get the rock to the first skipping point, how much rotation the rock needs to maintain its orientation and other things - i.e., which rocks are too sharp-edged to throw etc. One has done a lot of qualitative science now just to learn to skip a rock. Now one can go the lakeside on an afternoon and pass the time by skipping rocks or by having a contest with a friend to see who can skip similar rocks the greatest number of times before they sink.

However, one could equally well decide to pick up a flat rock and throw it at a boulder. Here one would learn that a flat rock can indeed be thrown to hit a boulder. One could learn how to control the throw, etc. Again, one would be doing some qualitative science. Again, one could pass the time with one's friends seeing who could hit a particular boulder in the fewest number of tries.

So far, there are just a couple of people who have done science to learn how to skip rocks and how to hit boulders with thrown rocks. Now, let's take a third person and bring him or her into the picture. This third person has seen the other two spending time down by the lake. However, this third person knows someone in the area whom he or she does not like. The third person then sets out to learn how to use the rock throwing that he or she has seen to settle a score.

To settle the score, the third person decides that skipping rocks is not likely to be very effective unless, the target can be made to stand still out in the lake. Thus, the other approach is chosen. The third person takes a flat rock and heads off to learn how to hit a boulder. Fairly quickly, it is learned that an approximately spherical rock is a better choice for throwing than a flat rock. Fairly soon, a moderately heavy spherical rock is chosen to be used to settle the score and is used to this effect - it kills the "problematic" individual.

So, are the initial rock-skippers morally at fault for the use of their research in the act of killing an individual or is the person who decided to pervert their recreational activity morally at fault?

I would argue that the people learning to skip rocks at the lakeside are not morally responsible for the perversion of their scientific endeavors, whereas the other person is morally responsible for the use of science to kill. If this argument seems trivial in scope compared to the potential problems of coal power or nuclear power or any of the more modern technologies that have been developed, please do keep in mind that projectile weapons have evolved over all of human history and have been killing people regularly for likely most of the existence of humanity.

In summary, the misuse of science is and always has been a political problem. Humanity and its flawed ability to cooperate are more morally culpable than scientists. What your argument entails is for scientists to imagine every possible misuse of their research and to abandon the research if it can be perverted into doing harm. Is there anything that cannot be perverted in this way?

A toothpick could be used to kill.
A great enough level of toothpaste in a river could likely kill fish or damage the environment.
Eating utensils could be used to kill.
Etc.


Anyway, I am open to your thoughts....

[DeSwiss]

30. I'm not talking about theoretical rocks......

...flat or otherwise. The "rocks" I refer to are called uranium or worse, plutonium the most deadly rocks that we know of in the universe. And they can kill without being thrown.

If the rock thrower knows in advance just how deadly the rocks are -- and that they can go completely out of control when thrown -- and with callous disregard still throws the rock anyway, then that rock thrower is immoral.

- Period.

EOM

[xocet]

32. Ok...I don't know if your EOM is intended to break the discussion off or to put a fine point on it.

The example of the scientists who studied rock throwing was intended to show that they are not responsible for some other person coming along and using that research for a bad purpose. The system being studied is absolutely unimportant ("I'm not talking about theoretical rocks...") as any system can be perverted in such a way. Any such perversion can be characterized as completely "out of control."

Beyond this, your characterization of uranium or plutonium as the most deadly objects ("rocks") that are known is not accurate. An asteroid impact would do quite a bit more damage. A galactic collision would also be infinitely more devastating than your examples of uranium or of plutonium.

Nature exists out there whether that is pleasing or not: at least, if one does the research on nature, one can try to control potential outcomes.

Ultimately, I suppose we will have to disagree. My opinion is that scientists are not immoral for doing research if they are not explicitly or implicitly doing weapons research. Furthermore, I believe that science is mankind's best hope for a decent future. Politically, humankind may not be ready for a decent future, but that is a wholly different issue.

I believe that you are blaming scientists for a political problem that they have nothing to do with.

At any rate, thanks for the discussion.

[sulphurdunn]

14. Well, if all those geniuses

we educate here are returning home to take what they learned and fuck us over, maybe we shouldn't bring them here. Both India and China fail to provide education for the majority of children past the 8th grade. Only the brightest and the legacies go on from there. Mr. Kaku is basically saying that education is for the rich, becasue, although he failed to mention it, a small fortune is required to attend an American university for a foreign student, especially a doctoral student. In a way he is correct. The best education goes to the wealthiest. Education reform in this country merely wishes to use public money for it.

[fascisthunter]

15. That's just Sad, and I believe Dr. Michio Kaku

this country is failing so bad, and the economic fanatics who bought into neo-liberalism are directly connected to its failure. For years they worked against those who tried to improve the system we had. Instead of fixing what was broken, they deliberately destroyed it because the system as it was kept their greed at bay. Bunch of fucking delusional egomaniacs who think their prosperity is somehow good for all.

[jwhitesj]

16. I understood his message as.....

we need the H1-B Visa program because of the failures of our Educational system. There are many anti-science people in this country and as a country we look down on "nerds" and look up to "jocks." I think he is speaking out against the culture in his speech that promotes the dumbing down of America and saying that we created the problem of needing to import genius.

[Confusious]

18. Crap wrong spot

[DeSwiss]

24. I am not.....

...one of those anti-science people of whom you speak. My point underlies Dr. Kaku's more narrow focus upon the paucity of the American educational system.

My point is that the "dumbing-down" as you call it, goes much further than the quality of Ph.D. students at MIT or NYU or what country they might come from. Whomever these students are, they need to ask themselves: are they going to end up doing more good than harm. Of course since either the government or corporations now "own" most of the work being done in our universities, we already know the answer to that. The decision is not theirs to make because they are not in control of their profession. Not if they want to actually have a career.

When Robert Oppenheimer concluded that he had done more harm than good after working toward the U.S.'s first nuclear bomb they disowned him and later took away his security clearance. And then tried to destroy his credibility. And we haven't really changed.

You would think we would have changed after 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima. But we're still as arrogant as hell.....

[Confusious]

19. Do you always blame the hammer when you can't hit the nail?

Science is a tool. It's use, or misuse, is a failure of our leaders and ourselves.

As for this:

Then ask yourself why all the new diseases, the cancers and the allergies are happening now and have been since the advent of science's "miracles" came exploding into our lives following WWII.

Pure crap. Read a little history. What new diseases? AIDS is old. There just wasn't many people to spread it around. What other new diseases? I can name 1 that has been wiped out due to science. Smallpox. Polio is on it's last legs, as long as the idiots of the world get vaccinated.

Who says ignorance and conspiracy theories are only for teabaggers?

[kenfrequed]

31. Well...

While I agree with the learned professor, here are a number of problems with the American Education system all the way up.

The hatred for teachers and unions is idiotic as teachers are valued in many of the countries that send students here for graduate programs.

The use of testing to pick out bad teachers and schools rather than to enhance ciriculum is the hieght of moronic. It ignores any reasonable social model and basic economics.

In the social arena we have an entire industrial-political organization that actually exists to attempt to undermine proper science in almost every respect. Science and the understanding of it is being obfuscated and diluted in the minds of the average citizen. (see Merchants of Doubt)

We have entrenched Neo-Elmer Gantry imbeciles who exist to aid this with their own opposition to the study of proper science instead favoring ridiculous fairy tales to proper peer reviewed research.

Those people in America that do have the chops for advanced math and knowledge invariably are tracked away from science and towards economics and other dismal pursuits thanks to some irrational longing to serve Big Business, which for some reason in this country is given great acclaim as the prophets of all that is good about America and are thought of as our great truth tellers.

-----

I do agree with much of what the learned professor says but we also have to look at Demographics in this situation. American Universities for upper level research and education are considered fairly top notch. But in terms of global population America is only a small percentage. The countries of India and China account for roughly 2.5 billion of the 6.7 billion on the planet where the US has a mere 307 million or so. Statistically speaking there will be a greater number of highly intelligent people in those countries than in the US if intelligence, whether by genetics or favorable environmental conditions (probably the later), is in similar occurance as a ratio of the population at large.

Considering the open visa system and the greater number of foreign students (India and China are not alone in this) we should expect to have a large international component to our graduate programs.

----------------------

We only enhance our problems by embracing the free market as a mechanism for educating our populace as embracing portions of this at every turn have actually diminished the returns. NONE of the countries beating us in the area of science and math who are currently sending more graduate students to US schools have been stupid enough to turn over primary and secondary education to mass private industry and most use fully public school programs to educate their kids.

[Hydra]

33. I think this was one of Kaku's stupid moments

And he has them more than he should.

H1 Visas = Slave Labor. That's all they are there for. These aren't the best and brightest, they are the most desperate.

Meanwhile, I know several very smart and well PHD'ed who can't get a job here because they are Americans, both in engineering and IT.

On top of that, We let China steal our technology and pass us.

The fault is not in the people, but in the people in charge. Our only fault was expecting better from a bunch of thieves.