Does science really help improve the environment, or is it more destructive than helpful to it?

  • Science vs. Culturally driven sciencing

    I once wrote a paper on this topic. Science that threatens the natural world is suicidal by nature. Darwin tells us that humans evolved from the natural work; cosmology tells us that we emerged from a single cohesive point in space and time. Yet, so-called scientists design military weapons and tools to kill people, destroy ecosystems and extract natural resources from the planet. These individuals are servants to the whims of civilization. A true scientist recognizes the inextricable relationship humanity has with the natural world; those practicing culturally driven sciencing are willing to exploit nature in accord with their culture. Therefore, science has not been subsumed by culture and stands alone; civilization is responsible for the perversion of scientific enterprises and has created a self-defeating industry that refers to itself as science, but in actuality is something else entirely. A true scientist abhorrs anything that threatens the natural world to which her very existence is beholden to.

  • Both, but more helpful.

    I feel that even though scientific breakthroughs have led to the innovations which have been used to slowly destroy and degrade the planet, science is going to be the thing that saves the planet and the environment someday. We will only save the planet if we can get enough people to understand the severity of the destruction.

  • It improve well

    Scientific knowledge can prove the quality of life and many different levels from the routine workings of our everyday lives to global problems. Science tells us every thing from personal discussions to transportation to health car to communication to defence and finally to exploration. Therefore I think scince helps us everyday.

  • Science is very important as it surrounds everywhere

    Science is apart of our daily life meaning that if did not have science we basically could not be living as even our organs are sciene related in the way they function to keep us alive and living healthy so w can enjoy life as humans. Science is also important because even our daily routine or actions have to use science which you could say is tied up with math which is also important.Math is everything we do so basically science is too.

  • There are pros and cons present on both sides.

    While I believe that most of us could take a little more time outside instead of on our smart phones, I think some things like having greener cars, or paying our bills online go a long way in helping the environment. I think that maybe we need to realize what technology is good for us and which type is ruining us in the long run. Before the Industrial Revolution and the technological advances it brought, the world didn't have big problems with global warming. We have to realize that with more technology, there is more destruction.

  • Science can help enviroment

    Sience can help improve the enviroment because how would we get all of this new tecnology like touch screen and apple computers and all of this other tecnology. If science couldn't help improve the enviroment then how come cars exist! Cars have lots of tecnology in them and if cars didn't have tecnology in them they wouldn't be able to move. And how come these all these stay green signs everywhere?

  • Science is very beneficial to the overall health of the environment and the people who live within it.

    Science is beneficial both to the environment and to people, allowing for research into the causes that effect the environment, and the finding of solutions to environmental problems that arise. Without science, there would be no greater understanding of the world, no way to recognize problems, and no viable means to fix these issues.

    Posted by: DoubtfulPaul84
  • I think science can help improve the environment, when combined with action to support scientific findings.

    It has been proven that science has the potential to help the environment, from developing clean energy sources, to showing that dirty energy has polluted the environment and, potentially, caused climate change. However, without the actions to actually create the beneficial impact to the environment, like funding for clean energy and regulation on pollutants, science cannot always help the environment, itself.

    Posted by: MountainousOswaldo71
  • Yes, science can improve the environment, by studying how things thrive and grow.

    You need to have science to study the impact of technical and mechanical advances on the earth. Science has brought to light problems that arise by using things certain ways. This has led to improvements in using chemicals on crops and insects, and how it is best to put the earth back to the way it was after mining, construction and agriculture have altered it so. The downside is when science is used to advance an agenda and does not look at all data before coming to a conclusion, such as in global warming and other environmental regulations.

    Posted by: ScrawnyNormand46
  • I think science can help improve the environment, especially with everything being steered towards a "green" ideology.

    If we put our scientific minds to it, I believe it can help the environment. You see "green" businesses popping up everywhere now. And, even "green" schools, to learn about wind and solar energy. We can't continue down the road we are forever.

    Posted by: PlantHorace75
  • People all over the world

    In my opinion, some of the late 1980's movies portrayed this type of event taking place in the future. I see it as a win lose type of situation. If we don't have the chemicals to destroy the planet, then it won't get blown away. If we have the chemicals, and not enough people that want to take care of the planet, then it still goes boom. The old saying goes, one person can make a difference, is not all what it's cracked up to be. And yes, I know what Bill Gates is doing. He is the exception. This goes back to my post on another site about how we have changed in raising out children. Whether or not we have the chemicals or technology to Save the Planet, it comes down to who we are when it falls apart. I see it as for some reason, we as human beings wait until it needs fixed and not before. Yes we are trying to educate people, but apparently we need to have rules and laws enforced upon us for us to make the changes we need.

    Posted by: RayC
  • Science affects environment

    Science does affect environment . As it is said every coin has two sides science has positive n negative effects but people just c d positive effects....It is not impossible that widout causing harm to environment science cannot develop ...It CAN have advancements. A example in science and technology which din affect environment is solar energy

  • Science violates the natural resources

    Due to science and technology , our natural resources like forests,wind , water all are very affected.If it has positive effects it also has negative effect on human life.Human activities specially disturb environment.Let us take the example of the pollution,we see our surroundings are dirty by the use of vehicles.

  • Destructive within in itself.

    Science only finds solutions to problems that were caused by man. However you can not blame science for the lack of knowledge management by humans. What we need is more self control, not another Iphone that only makes us feel smarter because we can search for every answer. Furthermore, the only solution humans have is to realize that humans are destructive within themselves .

  • Science by itself neither helps nor hurts the environment, because science is merely a tool used by man for questions he tries to answer and tasks he tries to perform.

    To suggest that science destroys the environment is similar to suggesting that guns kill people. Science didn't create an atom bomb. Men who discovered a violent application to recent nuclear technology conceived the atomic bomb. Science can not be blamed on the whole for a haze over a city, a polluted water supply or oil spilling into the ocean. Scientific results often contradict themselves one year to the next; usually this happens in the health industry. The proper term for this discussion would be "industry." Science looks into unanswered questions while industry puts practical application to scientific breakthroughs. Still, I believe it is impossible to gain greater understanding of this world without leaving some kind of footprint. Some question will always exist and so someone will likely need to chop down a tree or kill a mouse to answer it. However, destruction is part of life and as long as good stewardship remains over the planet, then it will thrive as it always has.

    Posted by: PhysicalLucien50
  • Sometimes not

    You see it is really a matter of opinion because for instance the Japanese are whaling for 'scientific reasons' and while this may benefit science it is not helping the environment, another example are the chemicals the science community are using while possibly being this?osed of correctly they still contribute to landfill as you cannot re-use most chemicals. Or 'experiments' on animals such as when they made a spider goat, a goat that creates silk, but this is cruel to the environment. If we didn't have science then wed be like in the medieval times which may be a worse for us, but its definitely a lot better for the environment.

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