Science: a Threat to Society?

As the 21st century dawns, science is pushing back the boundaries of human knowledge and
understanding further than many people feel comfortable with. Both cutting edge
technologies, such as cloning, and other more established procedures, such as in vitro
fertilisation, have sparked moral outrage and accusations of ‘playing God’ from certain
sections of society. And, of course, the global stockpile of nuclear weapons is just one
illustration of the possible danger introduced by scientific advances. Science has shown itself
capable both of killing and curing – on balance, for which does it have more potential?

Pros Cons
Science gives man the ability to Talking of ‘playing God’, aside from
‘play God’, and to interfere in thingsassuming the existence of a deity
that we know nothing about. that many people in this day and
Cloning of animals has already age do not believe in, implies a
occurred, and maverick scientists violation of set boundaries. What
have recently announced they will boundaries ? Set by whom ? Any
attempt the cloning of humans. attempt to define them runs into
Such meddling is irresponsible and problems of definition. In actual
potentially dangerous, and it is fact, the proposition is simply afraid
taking place in the name of of things it knows nothing about.
scientific advancement. There is nothing wrong with the
principle of scientific advance; the
accusation that we are meddling in
areas we do not understand is a
call for better regulation of scientific
enquiry, not its abolition.
Science has greatly increased the Science does not kill; man does.
capability of men and women to kill Science cannot be blamed for the
each other. Wars which used to be flaws in human nature, and
fought face to face on the suffering cannot be attributed to it
battlefield, with comparatively few any more than religion or
casualties, are now fought from philosophy, both of which have
miles away in anonymity. caused wars. In fact, the example
Stockpiled nuclear weapons give used by the Proposition illustrates
man the capability of obliterating how science brings with it
the entire world ten times over, and accompanying responsibility;
at certain points in history, such as Mutually Assured Destruction
the Cuban missile crisis, the world (MAD) ensured that wars such as
has stood on the brink of the Cold War were bloodless
destruction. events.
Science has perverted the
fundamental basis of human
relations. The word ‘society’ itself
comes from ‘socialisation’ – the
idea of interaction and
communication. With the advent of
inventions such as the Internet,
television and computer games, we
are now communing with a lifeless
collection of microchips, not each
other.
Science is despoiling the natural
world. Electricity pylons ruin the
countryside, acid rain from coal and
gas-fired power stations kills fish,
and animals are cruelly
experimented upon in order to
further research. Not only does
science give us the potential to
destroy each other, it takes a
massive toll on out natural
surroundings.
On the contrary, science has
greatly increased the ability of
people to communicate.
Telephones and email enable
people on opposite sides of the
world to stay in touch where before
they would have had no possible
way to do so. The Internet allows
people unprecedented access to
information – anything from sports
scores to debating crib-sheets. And
any study of pre-industrial society
will show that computer games
appear to have taken the place
previously held by recreational
violence.
Any consideration of the modern
world will reveal the fallacy of the
proposition’s argument. Modern
medicines have more than doubled
our life expectancy, and enabled
children to be vaccinated against
diseases which before hand had
ensured a massive rate of infant
mortality, whilst the population
could not be fed without fertilisers
and pesticides to increase yields
and machinery to collect them
efficiently. Science and technology
are essential to modern existence.
Like any of mankind’s inventions, it
must be treated with care and not
abused, but it is ludicrous to
condemn it in itself as a menace.