[Androgeos Exeunt]

While science might be responsible for the invention of these things it's very rare that the same person who invented something is also responsible for its deployment.

True, that. It wasn't Richard Trevethick who deployed the steam engine. That went to George Stephenson. Trevethick made the first steam locomotive, but Stephenson made it into a form of transport.

[Flipside]

As for the rest, I feel a distinction needs to be made between science and its application. Saying that you shouldn't research something because it might be used for evil is like saying you shouldn't own kitchen knives because they might be used for stabbing someone.

But just to look at science without looking at the fact the other people get their hands on it's results is equally as pointless. That's exactly what I mean by science distancing itself from the outcome of what it does.

[Mika]

But just to look at science without looking at the fact the other people get their hands on it's results is equally as pointless. That's exactly what I mean by science distancing itself from the outcome of what it does.

Seconded. Scientists have social responsibility. It is not that they could stop someone misusing the results, but they can at least keep some noise of that to increase general awareness. Unfortunately according to my observations, the credibility of those scientists that go public takes a dive in the eyes of the scientific community.

Mika

[neo_hermes]

i like gloom and doom...

[karajorma]

But just to look at science without looking at the fact the other people get their hands on it's results is equally as pointless. That's exactly what I mean by science distancing itself from the outcome of what it does.

Problem is that if you start saying that "This can be misused therefore I shouldn't research it" you end up with very little that can be researched. There isn't much that can't be abused.

[Flipside]

True, there is always a use for Science in society, don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch supporter of Science, even a supporter of taking a few calculated 'risks', such as starting the Hadron collider etc, but to make the focus of society to be solely based on something that doesn't consider the ramifications of its actions is just as dangerous as making it on something that is overly paranoid about some big beard in the sky taking notes, in my opinion

[Bobboau]

have you considered the possibility that you have made science into a stawman?

[karajorma]

but to make the focus of society to be solely based on something that doesn't consider the ramifications of its actions is just as dangerous as making it on something that is overly paranoid about some big beard in the sky taking notes, in my opinion

Agreed. But who is doing that?

I think you'll find that no one is deriving ethics from science or suggesting that it should be the focus of society in the first place.

[Scorpius]

Im glad that you guys are taking a rational approach to this argument instead of "Corporations will rape us to death and planet X will swoop out of the oort cloud and cover this planet in volcanic ash" crap that Ive read elsewhere.

My friend and I have been having this discussion for a few months now and we have different ideas about the future.  He believes that society will move towards ultimate sustainability where people grow food via permaculture and we live in small isolated communities because the mere existence of a city is destructive to our planet.  He seems to think that how most people lived during the middle ages was the future.  I see this as him saying that all but about 5.5 billion people will have to die before this idea becomes feasible.

Finally, I believe that people love their technology and travel too much to give it up and will come up with more and more creative ways of maintaining their lifestyle.  Even if society were to totally collapse, it wouldn't be long before we re-employ agriculture and our population will rebound in just the same way.  It seems cyclical and agriculture is a genie that has been let out of the bottle 10,000 years ago.  I feel that we are on the precipice of a major shift in economic and social reform and it will probably be violent and it will probably be destructive but in the end, I feel that we will be better in the long run.

[Flipside]

but to make the focus of society to be solely based on something that doesn't consider the ramifications of its actions is just as dangerous as making it on something that is overly paranoid about some big beard in the sky taking notes, in my opinion

Agreed. But who is doing that?

I think you'll find that no one is deriving ethics from science or suggesting that it should be the focus of society in the first place.

Well, I'm talking extreme example here, the point I suppose I'm trying to make is that a society that becomes too dependent on technology may, in fact, most likely will find it turning round and biting them in ways they never suspected.

As people have already correctly stated, we are already overly dependent on the produce of technology to some degree, but that cannot be helped, sheer volume of numbers requires those advancements, and millions would be dead without them, technology certainly has its uses, but it's kind of like the Douglas Adam joke about expelling telephone cleaners to another planet, which led to the entire population of the previous planet becoming extinct via a phone-transmitted disease.

[Kosh]

As for the rest, I feel a distinction needs to be made between science and its application. Saying that you shouldn't research something because it might be used for evil is like saying you shouldn't own kitchen knives because they might be used for stabbing someone.

But just to look at science without looking at the fact the other people get their hands on it's results is equally as pointless. That's exactly what I mean by science distancing itself from the outcome of what it does.

I don't think that's true, science is not distancing itself anymore than it used to. There is a couple decade lag between when they prove a groundbreaking theory and when it actually shows up in a consumer product. Take for example quantum theories. 30 years ago they seemed pointless and so "distant", but now more and more of our electronics use them (how do you think your USB jump drive works?)

[Flipside]

Heh, well, this could very easily turn into a case of 'what have the Romans ever done for us?'

I suppose the problem not so much that it filters down, but that to become over-dependent on technology, to rely on weight loss tablets and operations, rather than simply dieting (at the very least, in non-genetic cases), to rely on home delivery of your Internet ordered groceries, to expect the TV or Computer to provide entertainment at any time...

All those inventions are wonderful things, Surgery, Medicine, the Internet etc, but they are tools, and becoming dependent on them is already starting backfire in ways we didn't suspect, the decreasing effectiveness of anti-biotics, increases in Morbid obesity, even mental 'addictions' such as MMO's and Chat Rooms, it's all symbols of our over-dependence on the very technologies that are supposed to be nothing more than a tool to augment our own natural toolbox.

It's not Science that is at fault, it is society that is to blame, the Internet was viewed as a vast online library. It says a great deal about humanity that it ended up as a vast online Porn shop. Technology is great. People, not so great.