June 26, 2005
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
From Science:
Seen through the lens of popular culture, the future often seems like a time disconnected from the present. The view tends toward strange and dystopic—think 1984 and 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, and The Matrix. But when AAAS convened nearly three dozen top thinkers in science and technology policy to contemplate the year 2033, the perspective was strikingly different. The future, as they saw it, is familiar; many of the perils likely to confront humanity then are already evident today. While there are ominous portents in climate change, mutating viruses and emerging technologies for body and brain enhancement, they agreed that scientists, engineers and policy-makers can limit or prevent future problems—if they begin acting now.
One of the overarching themes of Vision 2033 is that technology will become more subtle and more powerful, reaching deeper into daily life.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:28 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d834807adc69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SCIENCE AND SOCIETY :
Comments
Science and technology has benefited authorities and citizens in crime investigations. DNA evidence has cleared some who were wrongly convicted and fingerprint evidence which has been widely published and made available through computer technology has solved old cases, as the case of the murder of a police officer in Los Angeles in about 1958 which was solved only a few years ago from a single fingerprint on a 1949 vehicle. The guilty party was found in South Carolina and subsequently admitted his guilt.
But has science and technology helped the lowly citizen in the continuing fight against police and district attorney corruption? Will the new technology, which is speculated to help find weapons of mass destruction, also aid citizens in learning about the secret activities of police departments or district attorneys, whose activities in most states are protected by the full force of law from public disclosure and exposure? I doubt it.
Furthermore, even if the new science and technology provides some tools to expose government corruption to unwitting citizens, would this influence the mind of an editor at an orthodox publishing house or a local newspaper editor to favor publishing or exposing such corruption, or would selfish interests and public relations still continue to run the show as they largely do today?
For many years, justice was denied in the so-called "Martha Moxley" case in Connecticut. It was mainly the book by Detective Mark Furhman "Murder in Greenwich" which got the authorities off their duffs to prosecute this case and obtain a conviction. However, virtually nothing was done about the cover-up for many years. But what if the district attorney there had sought to still keep the information under wraps, or had not proceeded to prosecute? What could citizens do to force the issue or appeal to a higher authority? Almost nothing. Ignorance is bliss and life is usually too short for most citizens to spend much of their personal time fighting city hall.
Suppose district attorneys, lawyers, police chiefs, judges, etc. are all involved in a local cover up to obstruct justice? Will the new science and technology in any way help provide the lowly citizen any useful tools to "legally" force the authorities to divulge what they are truly doing or not doing, behind closed doors, notwithstanding the secrecy laws which have been passed by the local elected "representatives" and which provide for the virtual secret operations of most local police and district attorneys offices? After all, secrecy is the enemy of the truth, but our own elected officials did this to us.
Mr. Earl Carey was formerly an engineer. He became involved in a labor dispute with his former employer in the State of Arizona. The case could have been resolved very simply and fairly. All Mr. Carey wanted was a simply jury trial on the issues. He had a lawyer the beginning, but later decided to act as his own lawyer pro se. In doing so, he was able to see the inner workings of the so-called "justice" system in the United States. His case ended up in United States District Courts around the country. In a four year odyssey, he documented improper and outrageous conduct by numerous federal judges, patently violating their own rules and our own rules, daily, routinely, with impunity. He dotted every i and crossed every t. He followed every legal avenue. He sought to even have judges arrested by the FBI. He contacted the members of the United States Senate judiciary committees. He wrote a book "IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America", Bismarck House, St. Louis, 1992, in which he lists 42 federal judges by name, who violated their own rules as documented in his book. By the way, he had to publish his book himself because no orthodox publisher had the guts to do so. This was the only way he could avail himself of his "freedom of speech". Here is a paragraph from the jacket:
"In plain, simple English this book takes the reader on a terrifying insider's tour of the operation of the federal courts, the Department of Justice, and Congress. Smoking gun evidence of horrible crimes is clearly presented. The cast of characters includes over forty judges, Senator Biden and the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Danforth and Bond of Missouri, Senators DeConcini and McCain of Arizona, the Attorney General, and numerous FBI personnel among others. Would the advent of new technology in any way help to overcome the problems of corruption in the federal courts as documented in this book? I doubt it. Instead, what must happen, is that all scientists and engineers must come down from their ivory towers, and begin demanding that the lawyers and politicians and police begin to follow the scientific method in their relations with citizens too, not just operate in secret behind closed doors as our elected officials have protected them and encouraged them to do, with the full force and power of the law.
Posted by: Winfield J. Abbe | Jun 27, 2005 5:15:06 AM
Post a comment