People are never satisfied with what they have; they always want something more or something different.
The author is professor of biology, University of California, Santa Barbara. This article is based on a presidential address presented before the meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at Utah State University, Logan, 25 June At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, Wiesner and York 1 concluded that: It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution.
If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation. An implicit and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical solution.
A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. In our day though not in earlier times technical solutions are always welcome.
Because of previous failures in prophecy, it takes courage to assert that a desired technical solution is not possible. Wiesner and York exhibited this courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the solution to the problem was not to be found in the natural sciences.
They cautiously qualified their statement with the phrase, "It is our considered professional judgment. Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a class of human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems," and, more specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these.
It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Recall the game of tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?
Put another way, there is no "technical solution" to the problem. I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win. Every way in which I "win" involves, in some sense, an abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand it. I can also, of course, openly abandon the game--refuse to play it.
This is what most adults do.
The class of "No technical solution problems" has members. My thesis is that the "population problem," as conventionally conceived, is a member of this class. How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment.
It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy.
They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem--technologically. I try to show here that the solution they seek cannot be found.
The population problem cannot be solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of tick-tack-toe. What Shall We Maximize? Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow "geometrically," or, as we would now say, exponentially. In a finite world this means that the per capita share of the world's goods must steadily decrease.
Is ours a finite world? A fair defense can be put forward for the view that the world is infinite; or that we do not know that it is not.
But, in terms of the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable technology, it is clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during the immediate future, assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite.
A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero. The case of perpetual wide fluctuations above and below zero is a trivial variant that need not be discussed. When this condition is met, what will be the situation of mankind?
Specifically, can Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" be realized?Once you have a basic grasp on the system of privilege, the next step is one simple self-realization: you are privileged.
Chances are, your reading that has made you feel urbanagricultureinitiative.com it’s a perfectly natural, and common, reaction, don’t let it get in your way of actually thinking about what the statement means.
Complexity characterises the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, meaning there is no reasonable higher instruction to define the various possible interactions..
The term is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence. Agree or Disagree. The lists of Agree or Disagree TOEFL Independent Writing topics below will help you prepare for this type of question on your exam.
Look at questions in the following four categories as well, to be prepared for all the types of TOEFL essays. Preference. Do you think we really believe that you could actually afford to stay in one of that narcissist’s hotel or eat in one of his restaurants? Good luck supporting the most morally corrupt individual in history to ever hold the office of the President.
I had the exact same experience in the mainstream publishers industry, so I believe you. It was about six years ago now, but I remember sitting in a meeting when then big wigs in marketing were asking us to explain to them how a blog worked.
Aug 14, · Advertising can tell you a lot about a country. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Does advertising tell us a lot about a country? While many hold the view that it does not, I firmly believe that we can learn many things about a country via advertising. Firstly, advertising reflects the economy of a country.