Sunday, April 09, 2006

Science and Technology: Good or Bad?

This question would not come with an easy solution unless one has read through the entire chronicle of human development and classified everything into 2 categories - good or bad. An almost impossible task because the differentiation of a matter into either good or bad is an oversimplification. Nothing can be all good nor can it be all bad when one looks at it from various perspectives. However, I could take a stand that without science and technology, life would definitely be very bad indeed. With advancement in those fields, we saw questions: some answered while others lie still in the gray area.

Our standard of living had been raised generally, even in the Third World countries. It is indisputable that because of the attention placed on biomedical sciences, we are more and more able to live with certain life-threatening or life-inhibiting diseases such as chicken pox, stomach ulcers, diabetes, or even just plain flu of which many forms of treatment had been invented or improved upon. Take diabetes for example, insulin can now be manufactured cleanly from bacteria and not harvested unhygienically from animals such as pigs. Many viral infections can now be deterred with the creation of vaccines. When we are old, senescence seems much more endurable with the availability of youth-giving operations and surgeries. An epitome of such impact of science could be from the fact that a lady at 66 years-old could give birth to a child just like any other younger women. In short, science and technology had extended our life expectancy with considerable improvements as well in quality of life.

Conversely, it also provided a controversial way of ending life: euthanasia. Even though it had been touted as a method to conclude a life of unendurable pain or meaningless life due to coma, it is not undisputed. Terri Schiavo had laid in coma for 15 years in a persistent vegetative state relying on life support devices until the mercy killing took place on request of her family by involuntary starvation. Such is the irony of science to not only increase life but to shorten it. We cannot judge whether or not this form of suicide or murder (depending on who made the decision) can be considered moral because it still takes away a life. In any society, that is obviously an illegal move. Considering the circumstances though, it seems to be 'the only way out' albeit not the best or most ethical. I would see this as a bad science since I had argued giving life of value.

Science and technology had impacts too on our economy. Research and development is now the hottest economics topic because of the fact that it generates insurmountable income just by selling intellectual property and needless to mention the products. The race to discover or invent a new technology drives much of the knowledge-based economy we are in. Rising economies such as India and China are using this as the primary mode of gaining GDP. In fact, Singapore has channeled much of her resources to building research hubs like the Biopolis (or the upcoming Fusionpolis) and training of research staffs by having regular research attachments for students to inculcate a passion for the sciences. This path had already been traced by Bangalore, a state completely based on research and development. All these for that prized investment from MNCs to keep the economy growing.

Yet again, this pressure to come up with new innovations had driven some scientists to cheat. The temptation is great for the completion of projects generates so much profit and the discovery of new grounds means promotion or being head-hunted by high-paying companies. The Korean scientist Professor Huang who submitted fake results for his experiments is the quintessence of such frauds. The desperation from the need to improve in science and technology raises question on our morals.

Finally, the price of raised standards of living due to technology and science is not zero. The invention of the first steam engine or of the first electricity-consuming appliance started the devastating phenomenon of global warming. It leaves one wondering if our existence thriving on damaging our environment can last. Due to industries sparked off by technology, so much greenhouse gases have been spewed into the environment raising the carbon dioxide concentrations to 380 p.p.m. and we are not stopping there. The consequences are grave and conspicuous now with increasing occurrences of hurricanes and droughts aside from the major climate change hitting the globe. We can almost easily conclude that science and technology is completely devilish because our planet's very survival is just about to be threatened by it.

Still, we cannot ignore the bright side of matters: science is the medium through which we realised the damage we have been causing; technology is going to be used to deal with the consequences and help the Earth heal from its wounds. And so I conclude, the question is not going to be answered in an argument; it is going to be answered in our actions. Science and technology can be beneficial or it can be detrimental. It all depends on how we apply them.

posted by synthesis @ 7:31 PM

1 Comments:

At 8:12 PM, Blogger tmefbthar* said...

An indubitably professional piece of writing as of the introduction! I see eye to eye with your view that the differentiation of a matter, particularly the effects of science and technology, into good or bad is an oversimplification. The innumerable consequences that S & T made happen cannot be clearly delineated and categorized into these two categories as many still remain open to question. However, for opinion sake, I do concur that S & T has done more good than bad, in the sense that without it, our lives will be no different from that a millennium ago.

The structure of your argument is clearly demarcated into the various impacts of S & T, namely on the medical field, economy and the general standard of living. With those concrete examples and facts, the argument is strong to your stand. For each impact, there is apparent balancing of the idea with the explanation of both sides of the story. However, I deem it more appropriate to rebut on the point contrary to your stance. For example, the mentioning of euthanasia and plainly deciding that it is a bad science may seem to contradict your stand. Perhaps there can be further elaboration on the more recognized and accepted part of euthanasia, begetting some good as well despite the fact that it takes away lives. A similar effort can be made to the subsequent balancing paragraphs to bring your standpoint lucid to the surface.

The conclusion was of impact, in the image of the well thought-out introduction, which adequately summarises the whole argument, weaving it to a beautiful close.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home