Scientists in different fields working on theoretical arguments have as their sole instrument in writing. You all very simple, at least in appearance. Scientists who do experiments instead of working in the laboratory. The laboratory could be the entire world, or space, or even a small closet. It always has been and will continue to be so. But if you ask scientists what to study in the future - say ten or twenty years -, meet can be difficult, if not impossible. If you return to the beginning of the twentieth century and did the same questions, we are in exactly the same situation: even then he had no idea what the future had in store. There were certainly people who have had enough ideas to guess, though there is no technical capability to explain in detail how their insights, albeit based on physical principles, then they could work. It was the science fiction writers.
Jules Verne gave us a picture of life in submarines, with lots of divers who were walking on the ocean depths. He also foreshadowed a good trip to the moon, but in this case only vaguely knew what problems entailed in a rocket to overcome the force of gravity on Earth. In addition to having "invented" the Invisible Man, HG Wells described a war between a culture alien and the earth's population, and in this case we know little about how they were considering the possibility in strictly scientific terms. There were also scientists who could see the potential that science itself had in it. Their great ideas are the basis of much of current technology.
Guglielmo Marconi is one of them. Still young, he knew that radio waves could be sent over long distances and could prove it by transmitting signals between Canada and Ireland. Wilhelm Roentgen, however, did not know what would have developed imaging and Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr could not predict the discovery of subatomic particles or magnetic resonance. All this confirms that the future of scientific discovery is not predictable, although we can imagine where they might arise from some new and important knowledge. Another crucial question concerns the role that scientists have in a social context. How will you use the information they collect? There will perhaps be someone who will order them to collect such information? (A prospect, this, not very happy).
Take Albert Einstein, probably the most famous scientist of the twentieth century both for his own colleagues is for ordinary people. His ability to clearly assess problems outside of physics and talk about it with great force and decision of what was truly remarkable. Gladly met the personalities of his time there a memorable series of photographs of him with Charlie Chaplin when they were both at the height of his fame. But Einstein, along with another physicist, Leo Szilard, helped lead the U.S. government to build atomic bombs to achieve the destruction of the Nazi armies during the Second World War. At the end of the war was won, but things went in a slightly 'different from what would have hoped. Should it be another great war in which one of the parts used in nuclear weapons, the environment-and our future-would be seriously threatened. I remain convinced that scientists should act to encourage governments to use their expertise in making decisions that affect our society.
I do not think that scientists should be limited only to scientific advice: they should also indicate what is the optimal use of their knowledge. In the United States have been encouraged to give our politicians the information we have, and explain how they can be used profitably in making policy decisions. We say that the "stalemate" in the last 62 years has prevented a nuclear war continues. But how can we tackle the growing environmental problems in the United States were highlighted for the first time in 50 years by the biologist and writer Rachel Carson? Fossil fuels will inevitably run out. It will take 100 years, maybe more. Or maybe not, given that countries that have control of most of our fossil fuel rely on it for their development. We must find a way to make clean the emissions of these fuels, which is currently very expensive, and try not to have to rely on them for transportation and heating.
We can use hydropower, geothermal and wind for heating and other uses, but not for transportation. Even nuclear energy for peaceful uses would be acceptable if we could find out how to dispose of waste. Have considerable importance to the genetic modification of bacteria, which are useful to clean up industrial waste, or those made on foods that can feed the masses of hungry people in the world. In Europe, genetically modified food can save farmers the cost of pest control insect pests and ensure that products are edible (not the cheap imitations that keep the color but not the taste) remain fresh longer, without constant refrigeration and no waste due to rapid deterioration. The benefit
caused to many people is a subject-both biological and economic - to promote the use of genetic engineering. And finally, how to imagine the future? Perhaps full of vehicles to electric power and a population of intelligent robots in our service? These sound like ridiculous ideas. The important thing, the real truth is that - if not destroy the planet first - the beautiful unpredictability science will give us new perspectives on how to make hydrogen, and in general on how to use elements in ways that previously were not taken into account.
0 comments:
Post a Comment