PT3 : How can we reconcile the relentless drive to pursue knowledge with the finite resources we have available? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
Keywords
Underlying Assumptions
Raising Questions
Is the expenditure of resources inevitable in the pursuit of knowledge?
Are the resources needed to pursue knowledge truly finite?
Are humans inhererently driven to pursue knowledge?
Is reconciliation between pursuing knowledge and finite resources possible in the first place?
In what ways does the pursuit of knowledge depend on resource availability?
How can we measure the usefulness of knowledge, and thus. is it acceptable to prioritize some over others?
To what extent are our resources limited?
Are there ethical considerations in allocating resources to certain knowledge pursuits over others?
Finite: having limits or bounds; not infinite or limitless. Can be measured
Reconcile: to find a way of making (two different ideas, facts, etc.) exist or be true at the same time; to make compatible or consistent.
Relentless drive: an intense and persistent effort or determination to achieve a goal or pursue something without giving up. "Relentless" means unceasing or unstoppable, and "drive" refers to the motivation or push to keep going despite challenges.
To what extent is reconciliation needed for us to continue
Can knowledge be truly limitless, or will we always encounter boundaries?
What criteria should be used to prioritize certain types of knowledge over others?
Does societal values influence which knowledge we choose to pursue?
What knowledge should take priority in scientific research when resources are limited—fundamental knowledge or applied knowledge?
How does the current world distribute its resources in pursuing knowledge?
Can collaboration help to maximize limited resources in the pursuit of knowledge?
Should there be ethical boundaries on what knowledge we pursue, even if resources were unlimited?
Does advancement in technological tools change the way we can manage finite resources in the pursuit of knowledge?
Is the pursuit of knowledge a human right, or is it a privilege reserved for those with access to resources?
Can knowledge be considered valuable if it is not pursued or shared due to resource limitations?
To what extent should the unknown or unknowable be accepted as part of the human condition?
Is time always expended in the pursuit of knowledge?
Is currency like money always expended in the pursuit of knowledge?
How to balance between the need to temporarily solve a problem through action and pursuing knowledge to permanently solve it.
Real World Example: Climate change is a phenomenon where urgent action to mitigate the immediate effects contradicts with pursuing knowledge to permanently solve it considering the finite resources (financial, time, human expertise, labor)?
Does different knowledge hold different values or benefits?
Are some AoKs more important than others in terms of the value of knowledge in it?
Can we always know which knowledge has a higher value or benefit for humans?
Natural Science: In 1928, Alexander Fleming accidentally discovered penicillin when he noticed that mold had killed bacteria in one of his petri dishes. This discovery wasn’t the result of an intentional search for antibiotics but rather a byproduct of his work on influenza.
Mathematics: Non-Euclidean Geometry Discovery: In the 19th century, mathematicians like Nikolai Lobachevsky and János Bolyai unintentionally developed non-Euclidean geometry while trying to prove the parallel postulate (a fundamental element of Euclidean geometry). Instead, they discovered geometries where the parallel postulate did not hold. Non-Euclidean geometry became essential for Einstein’s theory of general relativity and has applications in fields like cosmology and theoretical physics. It transformed the understanding of space and geometry.
If time is inevitably expended in the pursuit of knowledge, how can we reconcile it with the relentless pursuit of knowledge by humans?