The World, the Flesh and the Devil: An Enquiry into the Future of the Three Enemies of the Rational Soul.
Here's a link.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bernal/(this is discussed over in the season two area but not here...)
This is the same scientist who came up with the "bernal sphere", a type of biosphere or biodome in outerspace which has been referred to as "the island", which is talked about in another thread. So...this guy has proposed creating a civilization in outer space in a sphere AND he has written this book with the following included(sorry it's so long):
"But the scientists are not masters of the destiny of science; the changes they bring about may, without their knowing it, force them into positions which they would never have chosen. Their curiosity and its effects may be stronger than their humanity.
These two obstacles to the separation of the scientists, though weighty, are of the kind that would lose force with time, while those favoring their separation tend to increase. The technical importance of the scientist is bound to give him the independent administration of large funds and end the mendicant state in which he exists at present. Scientific corporations might well become almost independent states and be enabled to undertake their largest experiments without consulting the outside world - a world which would be less and less able to judge what the experiments were about. It is very probable that before the real independence of science could make itself felt, the organization of the world would have to pass through its present semi-capitalistic stage to complete proletarian dictatorship, because it is unlikely that a scientific corporation would, in an ordinary capitalistic state, be allowed to be so wealthy and powerful. In a Soviet state (not the state of the present, but one freed from the danger of capitalist attack), the scientific intuitions would in fact gradually become the government, and a further stage of the Marxian hierarchy of domination would be reached. Scientists in such a stage would tend very naturally to identify themselves with the progress of science itself than with that of a class, a nation or a humanity outside science, while the rest of the population would, by the diffusion of an education in which the highest values lay in a scientific rather than in a moral or a political direction, be much less likely to oppose effectively the development of science. Thus the balance which is now against the splitting of mankind might well turn, almost imperceptibly, in the opposite direction. The whole question is one largely of numbers, and would become entirely so as soon as the quantity and quality of population were controlled by authority. From one point of view the scientists would emerge as a new species and leave humanity behind; from another, humanity - the humanity that counts - might seem to change en bloc, leaving behind in a relatively primitive state those too stupid or too stubborn to change. The latter view suggests another biological analogy: there may not be room for both types in the same world and the old mechanism of extinction will come into play. The better organized beings will be obliged in self-defense to reduce the numbers of the others, until they are no longer seriously inconvenienced by them. If, as we may well suppose, the colonization of space will have taken place or be taking place while these changes are occurring, it may offer a very convenient solution. Mankind - the old mankind - would be left in undisputed possession of the earth, to be regarded by the inhabitants of the celestial spheres with a curious reverence. The world might, in fact, be transformed into a human zoo, a zoo so intelligently managed that its inhabitants are not aware that they are there merely for the purposes of observation and experiment.
That prospect should please both sides: it should satisfy the scientists in their aspirations towards further knowledge and further experience, and the humanists in their looking for the good life on earth. But somehow it fails by the very virtue of its being a possible and probable solutions on the lines of our own knowledge. We do not really expect or want the probable; all, even the least religious, retain in their minds when they think of the future, an idea of the deus ex machina, of some transcendental, superhuman event which will, without their help, bring the universe to perfection or destruction. We want the future to be mysterious and full of supernatural power; and yet these very aspirations, so totally removed from the physical world, have built this material civilization and will go on building it into the future so long as there remains any relation between aspiration and action. But can we count on this? Or, rather, have we not here the criterion which will decide the direction of human development? We are on the point of being able to see the effects of our actions and their probable consequences in the future; we hold the future still timidly, but perceive it for the first time, as a function of our own action. Having seen it, are we to to turn away from something that offends the very nature of our earliest desires, or is the recognition of our new powers sufficient to change those desires into the service of the future which they will have to bring about? "
This could explain the strange things going on with the weather patterns and the tides...and it goes along with the man of science, man of faith thing. Maybe the symbol on Desmonds shirt and uniform isn't military...it's symbolizes a huge mutinational company, a scientific corporation that desmond bernal writes about.
Here's some more info on this posted by Sofie in the season two threads...
"John DESMOND Bernal
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-types-...en-proposed.htmIn 1929, Dr. John Desmond Bernal conceived of the Bernal sphere, a rotating space colony with a diameter of approximately 15 kilometers (9.3 miles), filled with air and colonized around the equator, where the rotation of the colony would create centrifugal force to simulate Earth's gravity.
In the 60s and 70s, speculation and research into the possibility of space colonies experienced a renaissance, brought on by the Space Race. One of the most prominent thinkers participating in the design and advocacy of space colonies was Princeton physicist Gerard O'Neill, who in 1969 asked the provocative question, "Is the surface of a planet really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?" Throughout the 70s, O'Neill led workshops that investigated several proposed space colony designs in great detail. A NASA Summer Study in 1975 investigated three primary designs, dubbed Island One, Island Two, and Island Three. All three are based on the premise of a self-sustaining, artificial ecology within the station, called an arcology."