Science has more potential for killing...state your stand?

Question

GIVE ME EVIDENCE PLS

Answer 1

Science has more potential for killing?  Not exactly.  A few scientists have given a few people in power the potential for killing more humans (and other lifeforms) than ever before.

Crude technology gave mankind stone weapons and bronze which was made into blades.  Some of these were used for hunting, others for killing other humans.  This is the nature of the beast.

Science, however, has given us nuclear fission and fusion which might have peaceful uses, but were also made into weapons.  The fission kind have been used to kill humans.  These two bombs killed perhaps as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945.  That's almost a quarter of one million people using two weapons.

For centuries, healers have used minerals and plant extracts to help their patients.  It took only a few scientists to give us Thalidomide.  Many other medical interactions from prescription drugs have caused over half a million deaths just during the period from 1982 to 1998.  It has been estimated that prescription drugs (not used for homicides or suicides, but taken for medicinal purposes) have killed over 2 million people in the USA since 1960.

Lets leave military uses of science out of this.  The Department of Defense does not document it's projects or their killing potential, but rest assured that Nerve gases, Biological weapons, land mines, various machine guns, tanks and fighter and bomber planes (not to mention conventional rockets and missiles) -- ALL of which were developed by scientists -- have had a hand in the early departing of several million souls.

Or how about the withholding of information or lack of interest in problems which science could help solve.  Some scientists knew (from experimental data) of the potential harm to humans from Tobacco smoking and yet promoted Tobacco use.  Or how about the task of studying HIV after denying that it was a problem for years?  Potential for killing?

Other scientists have brought us fertilizers and agricultural chemicals, cosmetics and hair coloring mixtures, inexpensive fuels, dyes and fabric chemicals, polymers, electronic technology including communication devices like the radio, television, cell phones and FAXes, hybrids, human insulin for diabetics made by bacteria, moon rocks, reliable birth control (without killing), a look at distant stars, extinct life forms and the bottom of the sea, lasers (including surgical lasers), metal alloys, inks and modern printing techniques, and personal computers and the Internet.

Some even study the relationship of Humanity with the environment to perhaps give us a better understanding of how we are changing the small planet that we all live on.

Answer 2

Science is a process. By itself is neutral. Science is a mere tool. The use of the tool depends entirely on the user. Therefore science in the wrong hands can and will kill. Science in good and noble hands will improve life and may even save lives.

Saying “Science has more potential for killing” is irrelevant. People have more potential for killing. It is the wrong people that use the science that is doing the killing. Science is just the mean to get to an end.

Guns don’t kill people; it’s the lunatic with the gun that kills people.

Here are examples of killing by science in the wrong hands:

The Eugenics Movement - based on scientific theory of "Evolution by Natural Selection" was started by Charles Darwin's brother. The n**i used this scientific theory to breed their "super race" while trying to wipe out the "inferior" Jewish race from the face of the earth as well. Their little experiment was called the Holocaust.

Chernobyl - science brought nuclear power to the world. This one accident killed indiscriminately. The area will remain uninhabitable hundred years from now. Chernobyl is an example of what happens when science is in the hands of the ill-prepared.

PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyls is a man-made organic compound used as sealant and coolant. This little toxic compound killed animals and caused birth defects in human. Even though it is banned now in the US and most of the world, the contamination in lakes, stream and land fills still exist. Here is an example of greedy people using science to make quick bucks and damning the world at the same time.

Some more example of man-made catastrophe using science is DDT, asbestos, ephedrine, and the ozone killing CFC.

Using science results in knowledge. For some people on this earth, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Science in the wrong hands can be deadly. Combined with unethical motivation, science can backfire resulting in catastrophe.

Answer 3

MORE than what?

More than something else has potential for killing?

More than science's potential for doing something else?

You haven't yet asked an intelligible question.

Answer 4

wah.. take short cut for the debate thing ah.. haha.

Answer 5

Biological warfare.

Nuclear weapons.

Mass-murder machines.

Guns.

Gasoline.

The ultimate reason for global warming.

Answer 6

didn't science result in a lot of life-saving technology? plus it breaks down the idea that any race or creed is better than another by looking at humans objectively. According to science, war doesn't make sense. (we can observe the fact that war causes pain, and all humans feel pain.) According to religion, it can make sense. (the big man in the sky says that WE don't deserve to suffer, but for THEM and their false god, killing is fair game.)

Answer 7

It is not science which kills it is the application of the science and that is a human thing. So it is not science but politics

Answer 8

Religion has more potential as it has the potential to turn all who belong to one form or another violent against those who belong to another. Most wars stem from religious beliefs. The war in Isreal for one. Some of the most violent people are the most religious....Science is usually based on facts and free from religion. Scientists have to make progress based on fact and are therefore more open-minded in nature. They are usually highly intelligent and are for the advancement of mankind. People can argue that the advancement of science has made it easier for killing but history shows that murder has been around long before the days of Christ and a lot of violence based around him alone!

Answer 9

i don't think so. there other things than science that have way more potential for killing. religion for instance. there are people around the world who are fanatics and fanaticism never had good results.

Answer 10

Science makes the weapons, religion uses them.