Amazon.com Widgets

Advances in science present a threat: Do advances in science harm the environment (yes), or do they rather help to protect it (no)?

  • Science is a tool.

    Science does not do anything, but merely provides a scapegoat or a tool or path for a cruel man, a tyrant or a hypocrite to destory nature himself. Man can advance in the sciences peacefully and harmlessly if man chooses to, but man can also use science as a devestating sledgehammer to destory nature if man chooses to. Remeber, the sword can kill, but it is useless if there is no one wielding it.

  • Science is a tool.

    Science does not do anything, but merely provides a scapegoat or a tool or path for a cruel man, a tyrant or a hypocrite to destory nature himself. Man can advance in the sciences peacefully and harmlessly if man chooses to, but man can also use science as a devestating sledgehammer to destory nature if man chooses to. Remeber, the sword can kill, but it is useless if there is no one wielding it.

  • They can do both, but better when used for good.

    Obviously advances in science can lead to advances which make it easier to do things which can cause pollution. I think the noble use of science is when it's used in the pursuit of helping to fix the problems that it has created. The answer is both, but we should never stop trying to advance scientifically.

  • Science is neutral, industry causes harm

    Science does not present a threat to the environment. In fact, science is what allows us to measure the degradation of natural resources, and what helps us estimate the impact technology and industry are having on the environment. Though technology and industry (which can harm the environment when applied irresponsibly) cannot exist without science, science exists independently of technology and industry, and doesn't cause harm on its own.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.