I just have to respond to this point by point---so much is glossed over for convenience sake---and science is not society's scapegoat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphor-  Although scientists can dream of things like nanotechnology, cures for disease,both science and technology still have their limitations, and often cause serious problems. I am creating this thread to debate science. NOT RELIGION . |
I don't know of any scientist that dreams of any of these things. Dreams don't get funding. The idea of dreaming in science surely comes from the people who only talk and write about science to the layman--such as journalists, advocates/activists--- because funding science requires a sales pitch and public approval.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphor- Hundreds and thousands die each year worldwide in automobile accidents. Although scientists and medical professionals have invented medications for many ailments, they often have serious side effects. |
Cause and effect in both of your cases ignore user role/error/responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphor- Have you ever seen those adds on TV, is whatever-exanol right for you? I once saw an advertisement for heart-attack medication. After talking about what an amazing breakthrough their product was, this voice suddenly chimed in and very quickly said
“Warning our product could have very serious side effects, they include headache, abdominal pain, and increased risk of heart attack.”
Yeah, heart attack medication which increases the risk of heart attacks. That product sounds like a failure to me. |
Medical trials are structured well enough to give you a relatively safe drug treatment for a very narrowly defined ailment---Not a Cure-All. Disclaimers are put in by lawyers not scientists---why?---because even the best clinical trials have trouble getting a REPRESENTATIVE population. Minorities are not well-represented because there aren't enough near major medical centers---and yes peoples (and individuals) are different at genetic and biochemical/molecular/immunological levels. Why do drugs get prescribed outside of their narrowly defined purposes? Because when doctors are trying to save critically ill and dying patients, every little opportunity to get the job done is exploited. This involves studying and adapting from case studies--which are anecdotal--not fully proven/documented science. [Drug sales reps actually stress both these aspects when describing medications]
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphor- Additionally, the pursuit of science and technology has tampered with the environment of our planet, its ecological balance. The pollution created by modern scientific inventions has had its effects. Terms such as “acid rain,” “Global Warming,” “greenhouse effect,” and “deforestation” reflect the failure of science to safeguard the future of our planet. We experience the effects of these things. The weather all over the world, the climate of our planet has been changing.
This is not hard to prove...so im not going to try |
Science and technology result in patents--intellectual property--working, reliable recipes/protocols for producing something novel. INDUSTRY then uses the discoveries and---due to worldly reasons-- allows for all the detrimental effects you mention. Mass production for profit is the businessman's realm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphor- The negative side-effects of mankind’s activity will be felt well into the future. It is a real possibility that mankind will ruin the earth.
We have discussed the effects of pollution on our planet, what about on man’s health?
“Each generation is getting weaker as pollution builds up and wears down the immune system,” claims allergy specialist Dr. Jean Monro of Britain’s Breakspear Hospital for Allergy and Environmental Medicine. Environmental pollution, failure to breast-feed babies, the addition of chemicals to food and water supplies, and an unwise use of medicines and drugs are cited as contributing factors. Diseases ranging from asthma to cancer, and even child behavioral problems, result. As reported in The Times of London, an estimated 17 million people, some 30 percent of Britain’s population, could be suffering from environmentally induced ailments, many without realizing it.
These facts prove that pollution, the result of science, has negative effects on our health. Although medical science has improved in many areas, for every solution, there seems to be a new problem. The book environmental ethics states: “Technology is a servant of only limited usefulness, and highly unreliable. When it does solve a problem, it often creates two new ones- and their side effects are usually hard to foresee.” |
The facts above are quackery. Journalists and businessmen contort science and scientific studies into something laypeople will think they understand. Pollution does exacerbate the immune system--and can lead to high rates of asthma and cancer--but that is industry--the industrial age gave way to government regulation of that pollution (in the first world), people flock to industrialized cities--scientists don't force them. BTW businessmen, politicians, journalists collude to get around that regulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphor- Perhaps the biggest danger that comes from science comes from their primary research field. The world’s biggest industry is the production of weapons of war. It employs some 50 million people worldwide, directly or indirectly. Additionally, one quarter, or some 500,000, of the world’s scientists are engaged in military research, according to a 1989 study. Since that time period, those numbers have no doubt increased, because global conflict and war have both increased.
Is our search for answers going to lead to our demise? what do you think? |
The world's biggest industry is still agriculture. BTW if one-quarter of scientists are on the War Dept's (DOD in the US) payroll it is due to political reasons. In brief, war stimulates the manufacturing economy, so politicians use war depts to hand out contracts to their favored business interests. In peacetime--the art of politics has crafted a way to continue to stimulate the economy----by funding research----and favoring business interests by providing research and development with the expense distributed over a very large tax base. A lot of technology is created this way----- big government funds the R&D, then hands discoveries to business in order to bring the discoveries (not the benefits) to the masses for profit. This is the new capitalism. Why is this the new capitalism? because we (mankind) have discovered everything that is obvious; now we require huge budgets that only big govt--and some behemoth business concerns (read multinationals) can afford.