It's the technology, stupid!
Sep. 21st, 2014 06:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeletsa quick note to myself wrt this discussion:
I wonder if the subject of the discussion (and its conclusion) is strongly shaped by the language used in the conversation. In Russian, it is customary to refer to research activities in a broad variety of fields using a singular term "наука" (science). By contrast, in English (US) people use plural "sciences" to describe the same thing. For example, it is generally understood that physics and political science are different sciences, although they might deploy what is loosely described as "the scientific method."
To me, sciences are like raw materials that are required by technologies. When it comes to "содержит те самые 7 миллиардов", technological innovation beats sciences hands down, despite the fact that technology is often based on rather poor science (e.g. the Moore's Law). If we study the history of science and technology scientifically (see e.g. Paul Romer on innovation), i.e. not trying to deceive ourselves with our own biases, it's the technology, not science, that feeds the world.
наука сейчас содержит те самые 7 млрд. населения, это заложники - даже в случае каких-то несогласий тут надо осторожно, чтобы народ не стал особенно обильно умирать, обильнее, чем он это делает собственными волеиспусканиями.
I wonder if the subject of the discussion (and its conclusion) is strongly shaped by the language used in the conversation. In Russian, it is customary to refer to research activities in a broad variety of fields using a singular term "наука" (science). By contrast, in English (US) people use plural "sciences" to describe the same thing. For example, it is generally understood that physics and political science are different sciences, although they might deploy what is loosely described as "the scientific method."
To me, sciences are like raw materials that are required by technologies. When it comes to "содержит те самые 7 миллиардов", technological innovation beats sciences hands down, despite the fact that technology is often based on rather poor science (e.g. the Moore's Law). If we study the history of science and technology scientifically (see e.g. Paul Romer on innovation), i.e. not trying to deceive ourselves with our own biases, it's the technology, not science, that feeds the world.
