o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:
It seems that science is being equated with either progress, technology, or knowledge...
Moreover though, it's kind of a silly question to be honest. We know that either can be used for good or bad means, and that neither alone is sufficient to kill on a large scale.
The more relevant question would be which has a greater net benefit to the world. Science can be used to kill, but there are countless benefits of science (or technology) that cannot be gained through any other means. For example medicine, antiseptics, locomotion, long range communications, videogames, potato chips that taste like tacos, a drastic decrease in poverty and hunger, a drastic increase in life expectancy and quality of life, and so on. So, even if science is potentially dangerous, it is worth keeping and fixing, because we have no other way to get the benefits.
On the other hand, there is, to my knowledge, no benefit that we can get through religion that we can not achieve through other means. There's no benefit that requires religion to balance out the dangers, so it's not useful to keep it.
|
"We know that either can be used for good or bad means, and that neither alone is sufficient to kill on a large scale."
nuclear war or accidents cannot kill on a large scale?
"Science can be used to kill, but there are countless benefits of science (or technology) that cannot be gained through any other means."
as i asked someone else, what is the point of those benefits if due to global warming we all drown when the ice caps melt?
|
The point is quality of life. We're all (individually and as a species) going to die eventually. That does not mean that quality of life isn't important. Personally, if it was a choice between humanity living for 1,000 more years with a high quality of life, or for a million more but in the condition of cavemen, I'd take 1,000.
