Amazon.com Widgets

Science has shown itself capable both of killing and curing – on balance, for which does it have more potential?

  • Science has more potential to cure then to harm.

    Although science can be a destructive force capable of causing great harm and injury to many, it has the possibility of solving all the worlds problems and healing all the diseases and infections we currently can not cure. With this science is of the greater good then the greater evil.

  • The potential for killing is always greater, because it always easier to kill than it is to creation

    The potential for killing is always greater, because it always easier to kill than it is to create. Since it is much easier to end a life than to save a life, the potential for science to kill is much greater than its potential to cure. As the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat. To cure, many factors have to be just right. If any particular measurement or variable is off, science has the potential to kill.

  • Killing of any type of parasite is easy, but curing is difficult.

    Killing of any disease is possible outside the body, through various chemicals, such as bleach or by exposing the disease to heat, so it gets denatured. However, many diseases hide inside the body, where drugs cannot reach them. While the disease can be controlled and treated, it is difficult to cure it completely.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • I believe that science has more potential for curing than killing, as is evident from the many diseases that have been cured.

    The only reason that people think that science would be better for killing is because that is all that we hear about on the news. We see pictures of war, so people think science can only be used for killing. Very rarely do we hear about how millions of people have been saved by the smallpox vaccine, or how chicken pox isn't common in kids anymore. We have science, and science alone, to thank for the continual rise of the human population.

    Posted by: BryanPeterson
  • I believe that science has more potential to cure, rather than to kill, because of the amount of treatable conditions known today.

    So many diseases have been cured with the assistance of science. This includes every disease, ranging from a sinus infection to syphilis. There are even vaccines that prevent a number of conditions, such as polio. A number of toxins, including pesticides, were created by man. However, not nearly as many as the number of cured conditions.

    Posted by: CrabbyDonn59
  • I believe science has more potential for killing that for curing.

    Science is ultimately blind to the issues it faces. Scientists enter into a world that they are integrally a part of and it impossible for them to see the whole when they are inside it like a bubble. For every discovery they make, they are still thousands of years away from truly understanding the processes that have taken billions of years to form on our planet. For each life they save, they only condemn them or their ancestors to be destroyed by evolution. Curing sickness is really only prolonging suffering, because most members of our species would have died out and a stronger more adapted version would have been born. Science has kept these people alive despite the age-old forces that would normally have seen them return to earth.

    Posted by: GullibleEmery59
  • The potential for killing is always greater, because it always easier to kill than it is to create.

    Since it is much easier to end a life than to save a life, the potential for science to kill is much greater than its potential to cure. As the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat. To cure, many factors have to be just right. If any particular measurement or variable is off, science has the potential to kill.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • I agree that science has a greater potential for curing, because God has his reasons for nature happening the way it does, and science is a part of that.

    Cloning can be hurtful and beneficial at the same time. It is hurtful because people need to understand the consequences of eliminating animals and food supply. But, it is also beneficial because it can multiply certain species. Some cures for disease may be beneficial, if individuals take the medicine as prescribed and not abuse it. Also, humans must understand the consequences for disobedience.

    Posted by: GleamingAhmad
  • Science has more potential to cure than kill, because science doesn't kill, people do.

    Science is the organized and systematic pursuit of knowledge. How that knowledge is used by persons or groups does not negate its potential value. There is a logical fallacy in the premise "science has shown itself capable of killing". Therefore, I believe that there is more potential for science to contribute to curing.

    Posted by: KnowledgeableWilford94
  • Yes, science has the potential of curing, more than it does the potential of killing intentionally.

    Science is the lifeline of humanity. Science has lead us to discover a lot of horrible things but, at the same time, science has made our world a better place. No one can argue that the world is a much better place to live than it was 100 years ago. It is scientists that discovered the cure for many of the diseases that plagued the world not many decades ago. What is great about science is that, even when it does something wrong, it has a way of righting itself.

    Posted by: JaggedGiuseppe
  • Mrs. Dutenhoffers Class

    The only time we use science to kill is during war. All the other times science is being used to benefit the people. Think of all the medicine and vaccine we engineered. Or the technology advances we have come across. When humanity wants something we make it. How do we make it? With science.

  • I think it can cure more then it can kill if we put more effort into making cures for diseases, rather than building weapons to kill people.

    Humans have shown the ability to make incredible medicines. Over time, we should be able to have science so advanced that we can cure and repair anything and any one. It just depends on how much time and money we spend on this goal.

    Posted by: PainstakingLawrence

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-02-21T16:11:21.923
Not a yes or no question but I'd say both, it just depends on what society needs at the time