frorum for week of 31 October: error, ignorance, use

I am going to take a bit of a utilitarian approach to answering this. You need to weigh out the implications. The intuitive first step is to ask of which option makes the individual directly involved the happiest. This is what appears to be asking each student who is replying to this topic.

So to move away from what is already being asked of us, what should also perhaps be considered is, what is it that the world already has and what does the world need. If the world already has lots of useful "stuff", but no truths - then I would suggest that perhaps we should seek out some fundamental facts.

We should weigh this with how high of a value the individual holds each option for them - for example, if person A would have a very high utility and happiness level from being a technologist while the planet is already at an average level for each other choice, then perhaps person A should be a technologist. Alternatively, if person A would only get a medium-average level of happiness from being a technologist but it would greatly benefit the planet in one way or another, then that should provide some direction.

Additionally, I think it may be useful to consider the implications of the nature of what it is exactly we are doing in each of the three forms. By that I mean the nature (good vs. bad) of what we are doing. If as a technologist you are creating nuclear weapons that will cause great misery and destruction to human-kind, that decreases utility and should be avoided. If the spiritual leader is someone who is of the likes of Charles Manson and has a devastating effect, again my suggestion is avoidance. The converse is also true.

Interestingly,when trying to evaluate "useless" truths by the scientist under the final consideration that I have outlined just above - the nature of truths, is that they are not inherently evil or good, they do not produce widespread devastation or joy by nature. Truths and facts, useless as they are all depend on how they are subjectively interpreted by humans. One could argue that they can be valued in and for themselves. To illustrate what I mean, Einstein developed a theory that was useless until it was interpreted by humans and lead to the invention of the atomic bomb. It is not that the theory was inherently good or evil, people created something from it. In contrast, an understanding of something such as Germ Cell Theory would prove to be ultimately useless until human interpretation steps in to apply it to understanding Cancer, in which we are now able to use such as theory to try to develop a cure. Again, such truths and facts depend on interpretation and do not inherently promote widespread good or evil. For this reason, I would choose to be the abstract scientist.