Will Science Destroy Us?

[Theory5]

I was watching my favorite show( on any station), on Hulu.com (perfectly legal, check it out), Fringe (the episode is Ablility, 2/10/09). Whats-his-face (Bishop, the other Bishop, not Walter) read from a manuscript (ZFT) to Olivia about how science is distroying the world through developing weapons through science. Of course the manuscript went in a different direction when Olivia had to get box and complete the first test (turn off all the lights without touching any of them).
But that got me thinking, we are developing bigger and more powerful weapons with science (obviously). Nuclear weapons can kill entire cities already, what deadly and unecessary weapon will we develop next? I think we need to create and get scientists to sign a peace pact saying that they will not create a device designed to kill, maim, or distroy. I belive peace is the only way we can forward our world so that we can make space travel common, magic bullets, and most anything and everything science fiction has come up with. I belive that if we didnt have war, science would have progressed so much further, stuff might have been a little different but we would probably have stuff that goes beonyd amazing.
Who belives something similar? Would you try to help make the world a better place by implementing a science peace pact? Or is there something similar already out in the world?

[Moontanman]

No science will nether hurt nor help us, what we do with it will determine what happens. Science has omnipotent potential but we have to decide how to use that potential.

[Michaelangelica]

All science/knowledge can be used for good or/and evil.
Perhaps we should decide what 'good' and 'evil' is first.
Can one exist without the other?

[HydrogenBond]

Science is like a faithful horse that will go where the master wants. The master can use the horse to plow a field or charge into battle. The master is human nature.

The horse has time to run free, but usually within the fencing of its frontiers. It can stick its head through the fence, to eat beyond the perimeter. But it is not allowed to leave the yard, unless the master is riding him or leading him. Human nature decides when and where the horse can go beyond the fence.

The war horse and the farm horse are two different animals. The farm horse is tethered with ropes slowly pulling the master in straight lines behind a plow. He is more of a walking horse. The war horse is built for speed, power and agility. The farm horse is tethered with regulations and protocols. The war horse is disguise and protected in armor. The farm horse, knows its fields and goes up and down the rows. The war horse has to adapt to the twists of battle and because of the high demands of battle, is often retired earlier. The old war horse is often sold to the farmer. Others are not sold, but are retired to roam in private fields. The farm horse works until he can't and becomes soap. The soap is taught in schools to clean the new farmers as well as the future horsemen.

[CraigD]

While I agree with Moontanman, Michaelangelica and HydrogenBond that science can be used for good and ill, and personally believe that we humans will manage to use it for great good and much lesser ill (signing and breaking many peace pacts along the way), a thread on “will science destroy us?” wouldn’t be complete without mention of Fermi’s paradox.

The gist of the paradox, posed around the time of the development by the nuclear weapon physicist for whom it’s named, is “why aren’t there lots of ETs more advanced than us around?”

One line of reasoning, “the doomsday argument”, presupposes that intelligent beings such as ourselves are fairly common, and travel or communication between stars not a great challenge for many of them, and dismisses claims from UFO-ists that ETs are here. It then takes the position that answers to the question along the lines of “we don’t hear from them because they’re intentionally hiding from us” don’t make sense, because if there are many civilizations and/or individuals with the capability, there’s little chance that all of them would agree not to interact with us. The answer that’s left is that they don’t communicate because they’re none around, and that the reason is that about the same time that any beings attain the capability of spaceflight and communication, they also, a little bit sooner, attain the ability for such terrible destruction that they quickly destroy their capability for both. The galaxy, then, should be full of civilizations about like ours, almost capable of travel and communication with other star systems, but slightly more capable of nuking ourselves back into something between the stone and the early industrial age.

This isn’t my personal answer to Fermi’s paradox, but it’s a compelling one, and a powerful cautionary tale.

[pamela]

originally posted by Theory
I was watching my favorite show( on any station), on Hulu.com (perfectly legal, check it out), Fringe (the episode is Ablility, 2/10/09). Whats-his-face (Bishop, the other Bishop, not Walter) read from a manuscript (ZFT) to Olivia about how science is distroying the world through developing weapons through science. Of course the manuscript went in a different direction when Olivia had to get box and complete the first test (turn off all the lights without touching any of them).

My favorite too

But that got me thinking, we are developing bigger and more powerful weapons with science (obviously). Nuclear weapons can kill entire cities already, what deadly and unecessary weapon will we develop next?

I'm thinking biologicals: take out the people but spare the land

I think we need to create and get scientists to sign a peace pact saying that they will not create a device designed to kill, maim, or distroy.

Even if there were such a pact, weapons and information can be stolen by unscrupulous types

I belive peace is the only way we can forward our world so that we can make space travel common, magic bullets, and most anything and everything science fiction has come up with.

Peace would certainly help, but with all the contention in the world, this seems an unlikely thing to occur

I belive that if we didnt have war, science would have progressed so much further, stuff might have been a little different but we would probably have stuff that goes beonyd amazing.

we have always had war and the threat of war can sometimes be the impetus to create more advancements in science

Who belives something similar? Would you try to help make the world a better place by implementing a science peace pact?

nice dream....

[dannieyankee]

Nuclear warfare, biological warfare, environmentally dangerous machinery.

The lack of desire to actually MOVE. Technology making it so that you don't have to THINK anymore.

Technology getting smarter, some people are trying to get technology that can think on its' own. What a bad idea.

However, let's look at the good aspects of technology.

A modern person can watch ONE HOUR of TV News and learn more than a man from the 1600's may have learned in his entire lifetime. That's from TV alone.

Looking up information? Almost everything is at your fingertips.
Bored? Take our your iPod, listen to music.

Can't afford a real piano? Get a digital one.
Have enough money and really like electrical instruments? Get an electric violin.

Check the price of that item, no, too expensive there, cheaper here. No gas wasted. They don't sell this here, get it somewhere else, ship it here, thank you, have a nice day.

Technology is growing rapidly.

Whether or not it is dangerous is how far we go. People scoff at the idea of technology ever being able to take over the humans, no, we can't invent technology that thinks on its' own,and if it did, we'd be able to stop it.

Well, a couple hundred years ago, people scoffed at the idea of inventions such as the internet. Travel through space? Nonsense. There's no gravity, how will you move?

We could very well be planning our demise. Technically, we already are - environmental damage is our demise.

[Moontanman]

Fermi's paradox can also be explained by the possibility that we are not as knowledgeable about the universe as we think and communicating aliens move on rapidly from the means we use to communicate to other things we have no idea about. it could also be explained by the possibility that technological advanced beings are so rare as to be almost non-existent. Possibly one technological civilization per every 100 Milky way sized galaxies?

[lawcat]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. It's not the science, it's the scientists that are the problem, and those who own the labor of the scientists.

I got a spyware virus on my comp recently, and these are made by computer geeks either: for the joy of making others miserable, or for commercial purposes. Had it not been for free google tools, I'd be screwed.

[Michaelangelica]

Guns kill people.
QED