Is science destroying the way we live?

I'm referring more to like the sophistication in humans. examples would be like knowing too much ruining the way you want to experience things.

i really don't know which side to take on this...

an example would be like.. learning about genetics. after people figured out they were all pretty much they same and are composed of particles, they freaked out and felt like robots or something

or psychology. when you figure out how mechanical the brain really is, you feel like you have no control over your body.

i really don't know how to describe it without broad examples.

I'm really into science and I can definitely say that science has never altered my view on life (other than religion).

Advancing scientific knowledge is in no way whatsoever harming society or harming anyone's outlook on life, unless of course if they're an idiot.

It all depends on what you believe humans were meant to do. Science is a topic, a belief that we would've came across no matter what in our history due to our growing intelligence over the years of the world around us. The change that science represents is for the most part accidental and is mathematical equations represented by a physical or digital device.

Most science has a positive impact on the human race for most of the 20th century and before, but the main problem now is the absolute disdain for the Earth we live on. For all the scientific achievements we had in the 20th century and before now seem minor to the people in charge compared to the need of so many humans. The main target is the health of the human race and not thereof the value of the items that give us life like water and food sources, hell, they're barely regulated.

I find the main problem persists in the illusion that we actually need science anymore. We have gotten to a point where the waste is extremely destructive and is putting on a direct flight straight to a fiery end. But to their defence, they're created a monster that will always need maintenance, for people need their cures, their jobs, their networks, and the ability to protect themselves against others.

If you can hear the egotism in that, that humans actually NEED to someday prevent death, use the money that's given to science in some other way, go back to old networks such as newspapers, and to show to others that there is no way you can defeat them even when everyday there is major network attacks, suicide bombs that still work no matter how technologically advanced you are, and idiotic politicians that seem to be less sophisticated than sewer rats, you can clearly see none of what the past 10-40 years has brought us.

So yes, science is a major impact on our lives, because people think it makes us live. When in fact it just kills us faster. But we love our new lifestyles of sediment and we're not about to get up and move cause' somebody says we have to.

You already use spoons to eat, wear clothes to survive, and live in a concrete cave others like you built.

Of course it changes. It did since the dawn of our own species.

Well, I think science has brought a lot of positive impact on our lives. We got to know ourselves better and get to understand how we work. We were able to developp other good stuff that implies our environment.

Sadly, the tricky part of science is that there is so much to discover and so much to learn from it that it can turn us, humans, into too curious and greedy monsters. Like when genetic was discovered, scientists started to play around with Mother Nature and even start to "create" unique animals such as a sheep-goat, fly-housefly, and many more. Or another typical example would be to modify the DNAs of certain insects to be able to figure out which branch is responsible for the formation of a certain part of the insects' body. Result, some were born with a member on their forehead, a wing on their stomache..

But yeah, to go back to the actual subject, I say science influences everyone in a different way. Some would be amazed, other intrigued and other too greedy.

Science in itself has no impact on fundamental human beliefs. Scientific discoveries have impacted human life for the better, but we're still basically the same we were 10,000 years ago. Our knowledge is what propels our evolution, rather than survival-of-the fittest, because almost everyone survives due to good medical care and food availability. That is, a person that is physically weak and intellectually limited CAN have 16 children, while a person who is physically strong and intellectually developed can have just 2; therefore the weak and stupid person appears to be more prominent in natural evolution than the strong and intelligent person. In regards to our intellectual development, it may be short-sighted to compare the importance of the invention of Penicillin to the invention of the wheel. Science and other disciplines have given us many insights to the workings of the universe, our bodies, and the world around us, but in 2000 years, it is quite certain that these insights may seem rather outdated -- kinda like the importance of the discovery of the wheel seems now.

In the Renaissance era, when Leonardo Da Vinci lived, you could be a "renaissance man" because the combined knowledge of physics, chemistry, history, mathematics, etc. was sufficiently limited that an educated man could conceivably know EVERYTHING about EVERY DISCIPLINE. Leonardo Da Vinci did, in fact, predict a number of modern innovations such as the helicopter and the submarine, even while at the same time practicing as one of the greatest artists of all time. Is anyone in our modern era truly to be compared to a man like him? Even though you can now study all your life and still not know enough about ONE subject, such as biology?

Religion and science (and anything else) can coexist quite nicely. Atheists use science as an excuse to bash religion, but the fact is, science has answered a lot of questions only to create lots of new ones. I learned in college that at its most advanced, physics becomes like philosophy because there is no empirical evidence for physics at that level. (The teacher that told me this holds a PhD both in physics and philosophy.) Questions about our brains, the functions of the world, the origins of the universe, the workings of the world around us all remain unanswered by science. Therefore, people believing that science is the new religion are basing their beliefs on FAITH, just like those basing their views on religion.

I would never advocate ignorance of scientific principles, as is done by the far right-wingers such as GW Bush, and I think science is important to know because not knowing it is ignorance. However, I do not think making it the new religion makes sense, except if you've got ulterior motives for doing so. A LOT of the greatest scientists, including J Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein believed in God -- and these guys were sufficiently versed in science that they saw the working world in ways most people could not. For people to replace religion with science when Einstein thought it was a bad idea may not be a good idea itself. And for social scientists to pervert scientific views to fuel their ulterior motives, (e.g. social darwinism,) distorts the original purpose of science.

Oh, on the subject of religion and science, religion has a large impact on the birth and popularity of science through the ages. If you numb science down to it's first method, which is observing something fully, like a tree's leaf and how it corresponds to the tree's shape, you have the main reason why it's different than religion. Religion is also observation, but through a unilateral manner. The answer is either God, man, or the person in charge's opinion on what the tree represents, or if it's valued at all.

Religion came first because of our rather stupid belief that if I didn't create that object, somebody else did. It's not really a God perspective here, but an observation. Science is observing something fully. So science has and always will be the way to go, as it doesn't directly demand anything but effort and a mind to understand it.

let me guess, fundamentalist christian?

Um, no. I don't go to church. I used to for about a year and didn't actually learn anything from it. But I have read the Bible and have my own beliefs of God. And when you wade into North American/European history, quite a bit of it has to do with Christianity so while it may look like I'm talking about Christianity, it's just that our history is mainly Christian.

Now if you could possibly keep on topic rather than talk about me, make a seperate topic or pm me

~Zal

In my opinion, science explains how, not why.

In my opinion, science explains how, not why.

The "why" is faith in science for what it might someday theoretically explain, the "how" is seeing it as useful for what it actually DOES explain.

Science explains how and why: just because we haven't discovered everything about life, the universe, and our existence yet doesn't mean that science can't explain it all. Science is:

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws".

However, if there is some sort of supernatural higher power, I believe it created our universe in a scientific method.

Science is the laws of our world as we know it.

Science explains how and why: just because we haven't discovered everything about life, the universe, and our existence yet doesn't mean that science can't explain it all. Science is:

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"

For example: why did we evolve? I have yet to see an atheoretical answer to this.
Hell, if you believe in ghosts: what causes them to spring to existence?

I frankly can't imagine either of these being answered any time soon.

then why is there controversy on genetic engineering such as cloning or stem cell research? shouldn't everybody see these things as scientific advancements rather than hindrances on humans? either they are just too emotionally attached to these subjects, or too religious. otherwise, they have no reason to reject this unless they live their life 100% without technology, which is pretty much impossible today.

then why is there controversy on genetic engineering such as cloning or stem cell research? shouldn't everybody see these things as scientific advancements rather than hindrances on humans? either they are just too emotionally attached to these subjects, or too religious. otherwise, they have no reason to reject this unless they live their life 100% without technology, which is pretty much impossible today.

Stem cell research is not the same as cloning. Stem cells are taken from already dead material and are used to advance knowledge that will benefit the living. There's a controversy over it because of where the stem cells come from. But cloning, at least at our current level of knowledge is 100% unethical because at our current level of knowledge the animal/human is born fucked up, experiences severe pain, and then dies. You cannot compare the two.

Stem cell research is not the same as cloning. Stem cells are taken from already dead material and are used to advance knowledge that will benefit the living. There's a controversy over it because of where the stem cells come from. But cloning, at least at our current level of knowledge is 100% unethical because at our current level of knowledge the animal/human is born pineappleed up, experiences severe pain, and then dies. You cannot compare the two.

That's not quite an accurate depiction of "cloning". Cloning simply means a genetically identical copy. Much of cloning techniques currently used are at the micro-biology level to clone genes using bacterial replication mechanisms. Therefore it is a very useful tool in genetic research.

The way I understand it, it seems like a lot of controversy comes from a question of whether scientists are ethical enough to handle the power that comes with being able to use stem cells to grow new tissues. There is much good that can be derived from using stem cells, and to restrict research completely in that direction would lose much in potential cures and treatments. The scientists engaged in this research are not there to try to grow new species of humans, they are trying to find a viable alternative (for example) for people in desperate need of organ transplants.

Stem cell research and cloning do go hand in hand, because any tissue you grow from a stem cell are derived from that stem cell, and by definition of how mitosis (cell division) works, they are, in theory, all clones of the original stem cell.

I don't think science is destroying the way we live. Is there not something magical as well in being able to figure out how stuff works? And even if we are all composed of the same particles, is it not miraculous how very different we all are, despite that?

That's not quite an accurate depiction of "cloning". Cloning simply means a genetically identical copy. Much of cloning techniques currently used are at the micro-biology level to clone genes using bacterial replication mechanisms. Therefore it is a very useful tool in genetic research.

The way I understand it, it seems like a lot of controversy comes from a question of whether scientists are ethical enough to handle the power that comes with being able to use stem cells to grow new tissues. There is much good that can be derived from using stem cells, and to restrict research completely in that direction would lose much in potential cures and treatments. The scientists engaged in this research are not there to try to grow new species of humans, they are trying to find a viable alternative (for example) for people in desperate need of organ transplants.

Stem cell research and cloning do go hand in hand, because any tissue you grow from a stem cell are derived from that stem cell, and by definition of how mitosis (cell division) works, they are, in theory, all clones of the original stem cell.

I don't think science is destroying the way we live. Is there not something magical as well in being able to figure out how stuff works? And even if we are all composed of the same particles, is it not miraculous how very different we all are, despite that?

Well, the issue is not with cloning microbes or something, I am talking about some people wanting to clone humans. The promises of that are extreme, but if that's not playing God I don't know what is. In the past, horrifically unethical methods yielded tremendous advancement. It's not publically fashionable to discuss, but the Allies bought Nazi and Japanese war criminals' scientific research with cash and immunity from prosecution, (the research done on concentration camp victims and victims in the Japanese conquered territories and usually caused death.) In less extreme cases, you have the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment, both psychological studies done before the modern rules of ethics were put in place, both horribly unethical, and both yielding a wealth of information about human nature. Ethics is a huge deal because we can do a lot by crossing the line, but allowing that sort of thing has the same implications on society as democracies going Gestapo on problematic minorities.

Yes those atrocities did happen but ethics regulations have come a long way as well. I'm not saying ethics are not a big deal. They are. Many of the experiments you talk about were just horrendous, yes, but scientists in stem cell research are not trying to clone entire human beings. There may be a possibility of being able to achieve it yes...but the vast, vast majority of researchers are not aiming to realize that possibility. Scientists are human too, and ethics is heavily emphasized nowadays.

Yes those atrocities did happen but ethics regulations have come a long way as well. I'm not saying ethics are not a big deal. They are. Many of the experiments you talk about were just horrendous, yes, but scientists in stem cell research are not trying to clone entire human beings. There may be a possibility of being able to achieve it yes...but the vast, vast majority of researchers are not aiming to realize that possibility. Scientists are human too, and ethics is heavily emphasized nowadays.

I wasn't implying that you don't see ethics as an issue, it's just worrisome that some well-trained psycho like Ted Kahzynski might set up base in Africa and do these sorts of things. And if he's captured after like 20 years, he might receive maximum punishment... or immunity + cash for the research. There are some dark things in every country's past. So what happens if the equivalent of the Theory of Relativity is discovered, and it was discovered over 400 children's corpses? X_X

In my opinion, science explains how, not why.

Don't forget giving us cool gadgets, like cars, sandwich grills, and lava lamps!