STEMfags are slowly advancing mankind, one step at a time. What kind of actual contribution do humanitiesfags make...

The French Revolution and WWI destroyed the arts, murdered them.
STEM fags get big bucks making weapons capable of murdering vast numbers of human beings. There are spin offs from this activity.

>Japan
>advance
Ahahahahahaha.
All by the hand of the corrupted humanity.

>STEMfags are slowly advancing mankind

And there we have our problem
Hurry it up
Finish building your little tower so it can collapse already

Not really. They're heavily bound by social hierarchy and other memes.

>things just disappear because um...mr pseudointellectual meme man #457 said it'll happen!!!!! i can't wait till the day when i can no longer live my easy-mode life of gluttony and pretension that allows me to desire "collapse"

>Finish building your little tower so it can collapse already
It has already collapsed around 100 years ago. We're just the rats scrambling about the protein-rich rubble.

What does it mean to be better? Why is it better for Humanity to be able to engineer and manufacture prostate massagers on an industrial scale? What's your idea of utopia?

So you’re saying there exist social issues which can’t be solved through STEM?

>Have STEM degree
>Work as a paper pusher in the automotive industry

Ha ha, yeah... Advancing mankind...

>Have STEM degree
>wipe ink off senior executive's tablet because he thought his pen was a stylus

Ha ha, slowly advancing mankind!

STEMfags: make bricks, build house
ARTfags: decorate the house

We don't want to live in barr0n shitholes do we.

nothing wrong with artfags though stemfags still have to design and produce the materials, and there is no reason you can't be an artfag and a stemfag, they often go hand-in-hand. it's so-called """""intellectuals""""" that permeate humanties, that op is deriding.

you forgot something

ECONfags: decide you don't get to live in a house because your income isn't high enough

Natural science is one thing and humanities entirely another, Einstein knew how mutually supporting they were.You should know that, sperg.

And apparently humanityfag can't solve it either. Wow! What competence!
In fact, what kind of contribution to mankind you faggots have made recently eh? I doubt that there is a single one you could all claim without fighting with each other over whether it's actually progress or not.

>stem/humanities divide
Meaningless, knowledge is knowledge

>STEM can make better philosophies

You realize that would then make them philosophers right? You can't just re-define the parameters of philosophy by having philosophers of a different background.

What do you define as the humanities? Everything other than Science / Technology / Engineering / Math? If so, the humanities has contributed virtually all great historical, aesthetic, and political movements in the world.

John Locke was a philosopher, and the American Constitution was (partially) inspired from his work. The USA constitution then had MASSIVE influence for the rest of the world, democracy, equal rights, etc. Virtually the entire modern world could be traced back to the influence of the interaction between philosophy, politics, etc.

>You realize that would then make them philosophers right?
>John Locke was a philosopher, and the American Constitution was (partially) inspired from his work
That's the point.

>STEMfags are slowly advancing mankind
Slowly advancing mankind towards total human obsolescence. What happens when society becomes increasingly complex, and humans and governments lose their grip? Meaning the system has so many parameters, no human can ever comprehend it properly and react accordingly. Well, then we have to turn towards machines/computers/AI to solve complex problems for us. But then humans are obsolete, so what will the machines do? They will eradicate humans as humans will be burden on the system (Humans need food, shelter, etc.. which will a waste of production as machines will be able to do more with less). This isn't some kind of scifi plot either, it is the crude reality of stemfaggotry and its implications.

good. all species become obsolete at some and so will humans. evolution.

>this thread

So then STEM and HUM are equally as important seeing as the dominant form of social structure used today has come about due to philosophy.

one time i advanced mankind into thinking hawaii was going to blow up. amirite!

This is plain wrong. Technology and industrialisation decide what form of social structure is adopted in order to maximize 'progress' and organization. Your point was valid 350 years ago, but it sure isn't today.

Wrong AI will be able to do this.

Well since STEM™ has already Proven™ that there is nothing out there and our life is meaningless, i'd argue that STEM has progressed society by having it dig its own grave. Just look at the amount of depressed teenagers and unhappy marriages.

Is a world devoted to nothing but materialism a world we should strive for?

You must realize autistic stemfags were social outcasts and beaten up in school. Look at every technocrat ever. They don't care for a world of immaterial values as they are barely humans. They root for machines as machines are closer to them than humans are. A more perfect form of autistic soulless nerds. They would gladly bend over for the robots overlord.

WOW look at this STEMfag tossing the AI word around. You have no clue how those work do you. We can only simulate basic to somewhat advanced tasks through AI, but it is still limited by itself. Its infrastructure is an electrical circuit with arbitrary components that systematically do real-time calculations.
The brain is a biological instrument defined by its flaws. It is loosely connected, altered by different transmittors, can become intolerant to a bunch of stuff and changes responsively to its surrounding.

The brain is not a systematic electrical circuit, thus true consciousness can not be created artificially unless we replicate a biological brain. And research on creating such complex organic systems artificially has concluded that it is not possible.

>tldr; STEM has proven its own uselessness and thus embraced humanities :3

>"Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist, more than Gauss." - Albert Einstein

If you ask me what I would rather be, I guess that I would actually prefer to be a great mathematician and physicist, yet I lack the talent and the intelligence for it.

However, it is extremely unfair to say that the humanities are useless while STEM is the only source of progress and meaning and achievement in our world. In the end of the day everyone has their favorite songs, their favorite books, their favorite movies, their favorite TV shows, and all of that is art, all of that arises from and is produced to feed the ludic side of our nature. The desire to tell and listen to stories has ever been with us, and will be with us forever. The thirst for beauty, even when beauty has no direct and plain message (think on Beethoven string quartets, on Mozart’s last tree symphonies) is also as strong.

There is not a single person on Earth that doesn’t consume some form of artistic creation (even remote and isolated tribes in the Amazonia Jungles or in Sentinel Island certainly tell themselves stories, and make some sort of music, and perhaps also dance and have shamanistic rituals that are similar to theater, and paint walls, etc.).

I will not talk about all arts here, but limit myself to literature. Have you ever noticed that one of the main human characteristics is our capacity to use language? Several books and studies refer our ability to communicate (the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication) as one of the most awe-inspiring products of natural selection. Language is not only the main single characteristic of humanity, but also it’s most powerful and helpful tool.

Now, consider writing: the invention of the written word. Many people view writing as the greatest of all inventions of mankind. It is an artifact that allows us to register that trait that only we, humans, have: language.

Now for the final thought: if language and writing are some of the crowning achievements of our species and our civilization, isn’t it right to view the greatest writers, poets and dramatists of all time as the people who have taken our most valuable “technologies” to their supreme level of realization? Such men and women not only use language to communicate, but also force it to produce the most fresh, nutritive, and delicious crops that are hidden within their seeds. Like the human engineering of fruits and vegetables, that take wild species and refine them to their fullest potential, great writers take the wild-herbs of language and refine them into the most fragrant, sweet, varied and beautiful gardens and jungles of imagination.

If humanitiesfags did their jobs properly we'd have a viable alternative to capitalism by now.

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.
88. The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race—most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H- bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.
90. Of course, it’s not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.
91. Also, science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).
92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.

Yeah, how can we preserve the european peoples?

So you are saying there's still room for expression in languages to grow? Ok, but is such a grow necessary or we are just expanding ground we don't need? Nowadays only the most elitists among the art consumers care about such a thing, time and time again the casual crowd has proven that they don't care for high art, if so then it's better to just polish pop-art to make difficult concepts easier for the mass to digest and explore. Anyway, convenience is always in high demand, better living condition is always in demand, STEM is always relevant and beside, this is more about art rather than humanities. I don't target good artists nor humanities of the past, however, the humanities that have no real knowledge of actual science, who can't make good art, and finally, can't contribute anything concrete to mankind without tearing each other apart madden me.
87. Specific curiosity is still curiosity. A man can only do so much so it's simply natural that he focuses on where he can achieve the best result.
88. This is true, but at the same time, hardly the humanities of today can agree on anything either. STEMfag might not be able to resolve this well but they would have a better understanding of the matter than humanitiesfag.
89., 90. & 91. Is this supposed to be an attempt to devalue the product of their works?
92. Ah, I see. But like I said, regardless of their drive, what they contribute to society is concrete and of value. Empirical knowledge doesn't die in this day and age.

Humanitiesfags can't create an alternative to capitalism by themselves. You are ignoring that technology created by stemfags determine the political and economical system.

Don't be a twat. Science can inform philosophy but philosophy does not lack worth inherently.

t. bio student

comparative linguistics has ENORMOUS potential to help human welfare, and i could see how classifying a new beetle or whatever chemical that was would be interesting if you were into that kind of thing

what is this guy on about

Physics grad, came here to post this pic.

>advancing mankind
>still believing this is possible or desirable in 2018

>STEM can make better philosophies than you and it's actually grounded on reality
no

This. But watch out: can you consider knowledge all that shit of /x/? idk

Nah

not all STEM is materialism. You're thinking of meme STEM like CS, bio, any type of physics you'll find in pop-sci or nat geo. Shit like chaos theory and bifurcation theory are inseparably linked to philosophy at the fringes and can be seen as a bridge between physicalism and the world of qualia.

As a chem E I'd argue that the visual spatial skills you get in a fluid mechanics course are essential to being good at any type of platonic realist (IE non shit) philosophy.

stem just isnt fulfilling. im too depressed to listen to people talk about interning at exxon all day.

I disagree with bombman. I got into the STEM academia track b/c all dynamic systems are essentially the same and if I can completely understand the system I am studying (atmospheric science), I will eventually be able to apply my knowledge to the dynamic system that is my own consciousness. If I understand one arm of the fractal I can understand it all.