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 .

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.

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.

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

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.”

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?

science & knowledge are not to blame. they're just tools.

At the risk of taking this thread off topic, I'm going to suggest that it is not the science itself that is the problem, but the application thereof. It is not the fault of the ones searching for answers who have ruined the planet, it the greedy ones who exploited those answers for a variety of reasons. There are many products that were put on the market without the thorough testing required - an obvious example is thalidamide. Is that the fault of the scientists, or the drug company who saw a chance to make a profit?

Overall though, the quality of life has improved ... people live longer now than before this invention. I'd venture to say a horse and carriage was more dangerous.

There seems to be popular idea that things are going downhill. But it's objectively false. While things are far from perfect, the state of the world is actually better now than it has been in a long time.

I think not looking for answers is worse. Ignorance is much more dangerous than knowledge IMO.

@Metaphor: I agree with the problems that you have mentioned. I would disagree with your stated cause, however. Yes, there are problems all over the place --- particularly in healthcare. But I think that's sloppy medical research and greedy pharmaceutical companies.

Besides, I think we can do something about the greedy companies, but how on earth would you stop the progress of science if you think that's the problem? I don't think you can. The answer, then, is to try to ensure that what's done with the technology is done responsibly.

At least, that's my opinion.

NONO, i hope your not misinterpreting what im saying, Im not saying that science is a problem, but OUR persuit of science may be a problem. Not that seeking answers is wrong, but that methods or reasons for seeking answers may be wrong.

Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't say that our methods/reasons are bad in general, but they definitely are in some cases, e.g. pharmaceutical companies.

I would say it this way: Academic research is probably ethical, moral, and intellectually sound for the most part. Industrial research is where the problems lie. That stems from the fact that academics are successful if they produce intellectual results, whereas businesses are successful if they make money. You will never gain the respect of your colleagues if you do unethical things with your research. But you can certainly make money by doing things unethically. That's not to say that every business that participates in research is bad, but many are. The goal of a pharmaceutical research company should be to find ways to make people healthier. In reality, their goal is to make money at the expense of sick people. That's where the problem comes in, IMO.

The wording in the quote is rather confusing, seems like he is saying that the badness is spreading as-in genetically. I agree not breast-feeding without other reasons is probably stupid. It is one way resistance to disease is spread.
I also wonder, how many people that have all those modern diseases would just have died in the past and not become regular medical visitors.

I agree that most unethical and unthoughtful-of-risk research is probably done by military and corporations. It is probably just an extension of other problems society faces with those organizations, IMO.

Quite a bit of mis-use is by the average Joe, though. The deaths in automobile accidents are a pretty good example. It is not because of cars, but the people that drive them. For instance seat-belts were long known to increase safety by a lot, but it still had to be mandated for people to use them.
Actually, i think cars are used way too often in any case. If people lived reasonably close to their work and cities were designed ok, Bicycles would be a far more efficient method of dayly transportation. No emissions, gets you exercise, smaller infrastructure needed -including parking. Pretty good for a technology that was generally affordable 50 years before cars.(guess)

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.

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.


Cause and effect in both of your cases ignore user role/error/responsibility.

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]

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.

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.

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.

I don't believe that science is inherently bad. However, I do believe that lay people and some in the field mistakingly view scientific findings as indisputable "facts". This type of mistaken assumption blinds people and limits future possibilities. I also believe that it is a mistake to both try and apply the scientific method to all knowledge inquiries and to ignore areas of thought that are outside the realm of the scientific method.

In short, I like science. I don't believe in facts. I believe so called "facts" stop progress and new thinking. I believe the scientific method has limited application and, therefore, should not be our one tool fits all for learning.

Science is all about knowing things, the problems stated here are not science. They are 'mostly' caused by little applictions of science by non-scientists (this is veeeeeeeeeeery important).

And I think ethics and morals must not come infront of science, BUT human rights can and should.

If someone wants to be experimented on it is their problem, their choice. And experimentation on willing non-willing people is the only ethical question in science.

Ethical impacts of the applications is not the concern of science or scientists. The user, or producer should consider about these things.

i dont see science, or knowledge in general as bad at all

the issue with the adds is, that they are made by some guy that has no degree, puts on some white clothes, and everyone assumes he is a doctor.