To at least one who has seen the antagonistic results of some applied sciences on the atmosphere the query how does know-how defend the surroundings? If Nassim needs to unify science with something, the one thing he must not do is to create a theory which blatantly conflicts with the things we are able to already observe, or to argue that we should always replace a scientific concept that works extraordinarily nicely with one that does not work in any respect.
Future expertise will bring much more innovations and equipment to improve human life. Unitl that point that you just privide your own scientific PROOF to debunk his actual physics (not LAYMANS displays), you need to really shut up, and cease embarassing yourself.
At the same time as you might be reading this matter, the significance of Science and Technology is what makes it attainable. By no means mind the practically total lack of peer-reviewed papers actually challenging the mainstream science; if the objective was scientific, the main target can be on analysis, not public relations.
It seems a very long time since I heard that the World Science Competition (a beckon and bench mark for science communication public engagement …