Scientists who ignore both the aesthetic and ethical nature of their own study have taken “closed system” to a whole new level, a new level of ignorance which I believe makes them incredibly ill-prepared to be any amount of good for humanity, despite the scientific notoriety they may accumulate. Life is a much wider “environment” than just the material world. The “environment” of life is far more complex, interrelated, and beautiful than just the quantifiable. The earth is as "interaesthetic" as it is interactive. To ignore the aesthetic and the ethical from being a part of the sciences is worse than an environmental scientist deciding to study the atmosphere and making the early claim that the biosphere does not exist. So, to offer a new and base solution to the problem, I suggest, at least in environmental science, we begin using the following terms:
creep: the amount of harmful aesthetic decay brought on by both anthropogenic and natural influences. “The mayor said smog was the greatest creep in the city, and the side effects to keeping government buildings clean was a heavy, though avoidable, financial burden.”
nose ring: components which are aesthetically undesirable while not harmful. “If only the modern nose ring of white lab coats would be exchanged for green ones, scientists would not be so eager to think their studies are uncolored.”
agitator: components which create an environment encouraging vice instead of virtue. “The professor made the claim that there is no greater agitator than a skyscraper.”
beautilator: components which create an environment encouraging virtue instead of vice. “The professor made the claim that there is no greater beautilator than a rainbow.”
proxistance: the degree to which a person desires to remain in a material environment. “The man’s proxistance dropped significantly after the federal government placed larger labels on all beef products.”
From there, we can then create new terms like thermocreep, microcreep, and hypocreep. So let’s get to work.