Science, good or bad?

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

We now have social punctuated equlibrium. This implies that individual shifts to gain the best edge at the moment but with no real regards to how this might impact any future events. Look at communism, captialism, religion, etc. these are all systems that individuals have mis-used for their own gain without any real concern about the effects rippling out from their actions. Science has been used in this manner as well. I think those that abuse are not the same that use and expand it. Just as Marx or Adam Smith did not come up with social systems to be abused, others took the reigns for their own gain.

That's an interesting idea. I've heard of social Darwinism, read some, etc. etc. but not social punctuated equlibrium. Know of any good sources on this?

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by bumab

That's an interesting idea. I've heard of social Darwinism, read some, etc. etc. but not social punctuated equlibrium. Know of any good sources on this?

I really do not know...I just really extrapolated that idea myself...there may be other concurring ideas out there, I really do not know. Just took the concept of social darwinism and updated it to the current ideas of evolution, al a social punctuated equilibrium.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by sundog

I am merely trying to point out that we have gained so much benefit through knowledge, in such a small time, it has had an effect on all life.

So if science had progressed very slowly, or we had dealt with the knowledge more carefully, then it would not have had such a negative effect. We have certainly had much benefit from science and it may even save the 'entire planet' one day.

This reminds me so much about a paper I read elsewhere titled, "The Law of Accelerating Returns". It begins,

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light."

More here (warning, very, very long article)....

IMO science is good and man made obstacles to science are generally not.

One example that comes to mind is embryonic stem cell research. It is currently a hotly debated topic as to whether or not it should be allowed or funded. Guess what. Someone, somewhere is going to do this research no matter who or how many object. If this someone, somewhere happens to have some experiment gone awry that threatens the human race would anyone else even have the knowledge to deal with it? Not if no one else at least tries to do enough research to learn their way around the topic. No one will learn with man made obstacles to prevent it.

IMO, mankind better do what he can to learn the most that technology has to give because technology is going to move forward whether we are ready for it or not.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Guess what. Someone, somewhere is going to do this research no matter who or how many object...

IMO, mankind better do what he can to learn the most that technology has to give because technology is going to move forward whether we are ready for it or not.

That would not be an acceptable argument from a moral point of view, however, which is most of what the opposition is basing thier thougts on. Whether or not the research is going to be done does not make the research OK. That is, although something evil might be inevitable, that doesn't make doing evil to prevent it ok. Bad is bad.

An analogy is this: Knowing Hitler was going to create all that misery, and kill all those innocent people- would it be OK to go into his preschool and kill him as a 5 year old? (presuming he was a normal kid).

I hate to use Hitler, it's so cliche, but that's the first thing to came to mind.

Anyway, I'm not saying that's my opinion as far as stem cell research, but that's the argument you would hear back.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by bumab

That would not be an acceptable argument from a moral point of view, however, which is most of what the opposition is basing thier thougts on. Whether or not the research is going to be done does not make the research OK.

Yep, and it's just that, a point of view, one that would have us believe that an effort to save lives or to improve the quality of life is itself evil because it passes some mythical line in the sand. It also reminds me of an old quote of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

[Aki]

How could science possibly be bad? It's the most important thing. I doubt we can live without science. Science is life.

[mother engine]

forget science, is technology good or bad [more negatives than positives socially or vv]? i haven't seen the end of all of this yet and so i cannot really comment. one so called 'bad' act can lead to many so called 'good' acts and the reverse. the only thing that bothers me is people attempting to control one another. the rest is sound and fury.

[Kent]

deleted

[nemo]

I suppose true science could be described as the ever-closer observation of the world around us - I don't see a problem with observing the world around us. The problems arise through the method of observation.

With regard to stem-cell research: if to-be parents were presented with a question similar to the organ-donor question on a driver's license asking them if a sample of their child's stem cells could be taken in the event of a stillbirth (it is disconcerting how many of these there still are), even just a few samples a month nation-wide would be scientifically valuable; without the moral questions that are currently being raised. I see great promise in science as a whole, but do not think it should be outside the purview of the general public that is the supposed benefactor of the research (i.e. Josef Mengele).

So now I'm wondering how we would go about informing the public about science, the promise it holds and the risk that some research presents, without degenerating into a screaming match involving protesters of some kind. How do you have a thoughtful discussion with billions of people?