Dove sono i giovani eretici? Il mondo ha bisogno di loro. Parola di Freeman Dyson

Dyson è uno scienziato "eretico", nel senso che combatte i falsi dogmi della "scienza" moderna. La religione, ed in particolare il cristianesimo, c'entrano nulla. Lo dice lui stesso nel pezzo che ho tradotto e postato.

Ecco un esempio di sua "eresia" ecologica.

N.B. Il termine "humanist" e il termine "humanitarism" hanno il significato specificato nel post iniziale: c'è una tendenza ambientalista che mette la natura in cima alle priorità. Il termine "humanistarism" si contrappone a questa posizione, rimettendo, com'è giusto che sia l'uomo (e le sue opere) al primo posto.

Non ho tempo per la traduzione, scusate.

Un'ultima cosa: a quanto pare qualunque argomento finisce per sollevare, prima o poi, commenti che sono completamente fuori tema ed anche un tantino da trivio. Francamente non è particolarmente divertente vedere che tutto regolarmente finisce a grandi puttane.

My second heresy is also concerned with climate change. It is about the mystery of the wet Sahara. This is a mystery that has always fascinated me. At many places in the Sahara desert that are now dry and unpopulated, we find rock-paintings showing people with herds of animals. The paintings are abundant, and some of them are of high artistic quality, comparable with the more famous cave-paintings in France and Spain. The Sahara paintings are more recent than the cave-paintings. They come in a variety of styles and were probably painted over a period of several thousand years. The latest of them show Egyptian influences and may be contemporaneous with early Egyptian tomb paintings. Henri Lhote’s book, “The Search for the Tassili Frescoes”, [Lhote, 1958], is illustrated with reproductions of fifty of the paintings. The best of the herd paintings date from roughly six thousand years ago. They are strong evidence that the Sahara at that time was wet. There was enough rain to support herds of cows and giraffes, which must have grazed on grass and trees. There were also some hippopotamuses and elephants. The Sahara then must have been like the Serengeti today.

At the same time, roughly six thousand years ago, there were deciduous forests in Northern Europe where the trees are now conifers, proving that the climate in the far north was milder than it is today. There were also trees standing in mountain valleys in Switzerland that are now filled with famous glaciers. The glaciers that are now shrinking were much smaller six thousand years ago than they are today. Six thousand years ago seems to have been the warmest and wettest period of the interglacial era that began twelve thousand years ago when the last Ice Age ended. I would like to ask two questions. First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm climate of six thousand years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it.

The biosphere is the most complicated of all the things we humans have to deal with. The science of planetary ecology is still young and undeveloped. It is not surprising that honest and well-informed experts can disagree about facts. But beyond the disagreement about facts, there is another deeper disagreement about values. The disagreement about values may be described in an over-simplified way as a disagreement between naturalists and humanists. Naturalists believe that nature knows best. For them the highest value is to respect the natural order of things. Any gross human disruption of the natural environment is evil. Excessive burning of fossil fuels is evil. Changing nature’s desert, either the Sahara desert or the ocean desert, into a managed ecosystem where giraffes or tunafish may flourish, is likewise evil. Nature knows best, and anything we do to improve upon Nature will only bring trouble.

The humanist ethic begins with the belief that humans are an essential part of nature. Through human minds the biosphere has acquired the capacity to steer its own evolution, and now we are in charge. Humans have the right and the duty to reconstruct nature so that humans and biosphere can both survive and prosper. For humanists, the highest value is harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. The greatest evils are poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease and hunger, all the conditions that deprive people of opportunities and limit their freedoms. The humanist ethic accepts an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a small price to pay, if world-wide industrial development can alleviate the miseries of the poorer half of humanity. The humanist ethic accepts our responsibility to guide the evolution of the planet.

The sharpest conflict between naturalist and humanist ethics arises in the regulation of genetic engineering. The naturalist ethic condemns genetically modified food-crops and all other genetic engineering projects that might upset the natural ecology. The humanist ethic looks forward to a time not far distant, when genetically engineered food-crops and energy-crops will bring wealth to poor people in tropical countries, and incidentally give us tools to control the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Here I must confess my own bias. Since I was born and brought up in England, I spent my formative years in a land with great beauty and a rich ecology which is almost entirely man-made. The natural ecology of England was uninterrupted and rather boring forest. Humans replaced the forest with an artificial landscape of grassland and moorland, fields and farms, with a much richer variety of plant and animal species. Quite recently, only about a thousand years ago, we introduced rabbits, a non-native species which had a profound effect on the ecology. Rabbits opened glades in the forest where flowering plants now flourish. There is no wilderness in England, and yet there is plenty of room for wild-flowers and birds and butterflies as well as a high density of humans. Perhaps that is why I am a humanist

Puntualizziamo: la "scienza" prima di Galileo non era "scienza" cioè non esisteva come indagine sperimentale del mondo. Quello che si contrabbandava per scienza era un miscuglio di religione e di filosofia, dove Aristotele era il riferimento indiscusso per ciò che atteneva al mondo fisico.

Per quanto riguarda il carattere dogmatico della scienza, ebbene, bisogna intendersi sul significato dei termini. In questo caso, e sono d'accordo con Dyson, spesso la scienza, o meglio gli scienziati, si fanno paladini di alcuni "dogmi" (es: il riscaldamento globale) che sono argomenti scientifici che, per una ragione o l'altra, divengono anche argomenti politici. A questo punto, quando la politica fa capolino nella scienza, e gli scienziati smettono di essere tali, ma diventano parte dello scontro politico, nascono i dogmi.

Se diamo uno sguardo intorno a noi, di dogmi di questo tipo ce ne sono un'infinità:

1. Le risorse del pianeta si stanno esaurendo
2. Gli OGM fanno male
3. I pesticidi pure
4. Manca l'acqua (è l'ultima in ordine di tempo)
5. Le radiazioni nucleari sono sempre pericolose
6. Molte specie sono in estinzione
7. I ghiacci polari si sciolgono
8. Gli orsi polari si estinguono
9. La foresta amazzonica si restringe
10. La desertificazione avanza
11. I ghiacciai si sciolgono
12. L'aumento di anidride carbonica CO2 nell'atmosfera è colpa dell'uomo
13. Il riscaldamento globale è colpa dell'uomo (CO2) ED E' PERICOLOSO
.....
....
Mi fermo qui.