Has science really made the world a better place?
15May. 09
More than once the argument has been directed towards me that, on balance, science has done more harm than good for our species and the planet as a whole. The main points of this argument seem fairly reasonable on the surface — without science and technology we wouldn’t have nuclear weapons and guns and anthrax and rubber bands flicked at us during our work day, we wouldn’t have so much pollution and other forms of environmental destruction, we wouldn’t have cosmetic surgery that makes people look demented, and we wouldn’t be wasting time watching TV when we could be climbing trees or chasing rabbits or something wholesome like that.
Usually my first reaction to this is an ad hominem, unfortunately. I tend to automatically think: ‘hypocrite’. This is because they have invariably taken advantage of the very technology they’re attacking, at some point in their lives. Like if they’ve ever enjoyed air conditioning or taken a paracetamol or eaten any food ever that wasn’t grown in their own backyard. This anti-science argument has even been made to me by someone I know who maintains a vegan diet (which would never be sustaining enough if it weren’t for the available supplements made possible by scientific progress). Actually it turned out that the person in question was later told by their doctor to eat some goddamn cheese or something, or your health will be in serious trouble. My reaction to that news was simply “well I could have told you that”, before taking another monstrous bite out of my whale sandwich.
But I know better to go down that path these days, mostly because the ad hominem is a logical fallacy (attacking the person, not the claim), but also because strategically it should be considered unwise to encourage seething hatred of oneself so early on in debate. It tends to taint their interpretation of what you say next (it is, however, fun).
So, I modestly suggest, how about the fact that, thanks to medical science, we have much longer life spans?
“AHA!” They pounce. “And that makes the world over-populated!”
“Hmm…” I ponder, considering the average life spans in the countries where over-population is a real problem. “You’re an idiot.” Damn, ad hominem again. I’m bad at this.
I’ve said it before, I’m no expert. On anything. But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say the biggest factor contributing to over-population would be a lack of contraception in poverty stricken countries, and a lack of education about contraception. It seems like this would not be such a difficult problem to overcome, so what’s holding back progress there? Generally speaking it seems to be the voices of those with very anti-scientific attitudes, for example that ignorant, dangerous, senile, sadistic superstitious weird-looking petty foolish dinosaur they call the Pope. Ok, maybe Nobel prize winning Norman Borlaug had something to do with over-population too. He is often credited with saving over a billion lives during his steamy hot love affair with science. I’ll let you decide whether this achievement can be notched up in its ‘pros’ or ‘cons’ column.
What about the other arguments against science, then? Ok, so we have weapons technology. Definitely pretty scary stuff. Too many places have big destructo-bombs, many of whom probably shouldn’t. It may be comforting, though, to know that according to some, the likelihood of dying a violent death (any type) has been on a steady decline since the Age of Reason in the early seventeenth century. Despite all the horrible wars that are still going on. But maybe that is a topic for a separate discussion.
At any rate, you can’t blame the principles of science for the nightmarish things that some people have done with them. That would be like blaming Microsoft Word for the existence of those Twilight books. Science is a tool, it is morally neutral, and the ethics still have to come from us mere humans, as they always have. This same point applies when considering the environmental problems we now face. And at least with regard to the environment, there’s only one place (to my mind) that real solutions will come from. Do you know where? I’ll give you a hint, it starts with a ‘scienc’, and ends with an ‘e’. Ok, I’ll just tell you. It’s scienceeeeee.
So has science made the world a better place, or a worse one? Well I’ll decline to answer that, and instead just suggest that if you’re unsure, perhaps try a visit to the dentist, and have a tooth pulled without any anaesthetic. I will also extend the same suggestion to the writer of those Twilight books, just because.
Alister Fuller
May 15th, 2009 at 11:26 am
It is often argued that the best method of birth control is not prayer, abstinence, or even condoms, but rather it is educating women. I have not seen the statistics myself but I have heard it argued many a time that the better the education of the female population especially, the lower the number of children. If we spread science (and math, and reading/writing, etc) we’ll be doing good as it is educating.
Greater lifespans due to science may be seen as a con by many due to overpopulation, but spreading science may well be the best pro to reigning in overpopulation.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Well said. Too many people spout off this ridiculous line without even considering the basic parts of life that would not exist sans science — such as refrigeration. Ever imagined living in a world without refrigeration? It wasn’t, historically speaking, that long ago…
May 15th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
At the very least, science has allowed us to live longer and survive diseases and injuries that were once fatal.
On that alone, I say the progress of science has made the world a better place — a place where our loved ones are around for longer.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Science has done irreparable harm.
If it were not for the harsh, irradiating light of Science mankind would still dwell in that vertiable utopia historians refer to as the Dark Ages.
So, come step into the cool shade of ignorance, toil in the muck for a solitary potato and a weekly disease.
For life must mean misery. Listen as your Church informs you of the wonders awaiting you in the next world. (Jesus has a Playstation. Wouldn’t you like to play some Grand Theft Auto with Our Lord and Saviour?)
May 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Is the argument against science or technology? The two are often falsely correlated in these arguments.
Science is a methodology for examining the world. It is inherently neither good nor bad — it is a process.
Technology, as the product of scientific enquiry, is a different matter. “Just because we can make nuclear weapons doesn’t mean we should.”
So I would have to argue that science, by providing us with a set of tools for examining and understanding the world around us, has ultimately been beneficial. Whether we have made the best choices with that knowledge is another matter.
(To avoid confusion between the above paragraphs, let me make the distinction here: science is neither good nor bad; the ability to utilise the scientific method is, I believe, beneficial.)
On the matter of overpopulation, I would have to agree with Bastard Sheep, that education is the best solution. Education which is available because of scientific principles.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I will state, like MattR above, that THERE HAS BEEN NO HARM DONE BY SCIENCE!!!!!!!
Science cannot do harm!!! Only assholes using knowledge BADLY can do harm.
Any hypocrite living in the U.S. who thinks science is harmful is welcome to move to central Africa and have a gloriously SHORT life.
May 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Ben Stein would disagree. Wasn’t his movie all about it being science who killed his relatives and that hitler was a lovely person who had little if anything to do with the holocaust?