Will Science and Technology Destroy Human Civilisation?

[MindOverMatter2]

There are 3 myths in modern society.

1. Science and technology is our ultimate salvation
2. Human beings are basically good.
3. Science and technology can be controlled.

In the infant years of modern technology and science, when new cures where being discovered and new technology was making human labour a little lighter, people could be forgiven for thinking that science will bring us in to a new utopian age without suffering or poverty.

In the new millennium, history has made it brutally obvious that science can have the opposite effect, and as we continue in our technological and scientific achievements, that effect is in danger of outweighing the good. We already have nuclear bombs. In the future it appears nano technology and the ability to reprogram matter will be available to us, and relatively soon. The damage this could cause is tremendous. Whole populations could be silently wiped out over night.

The truth is, science and technology is only as good for us as our ability to counter its negative effects. Some say, so long as its in the right hands such horrors can be averted or controlled. But what hands is the right hands? America? You gotta be kidding!! You only have to look at Hiroshima, to realise that western government is far from being the moral light of the future. And what in human history proves to any sufficient degree that humans are basically good? It seems to me that despite humanities moral achievements the evil of man far out weighs the good, and the fact that we have any kind of working order in society at all is only because necessity forces us to work together. I certainly don’t see any evidence, accept for minority groups here and there, that people love each-other or really give a dame accept when it suits them. Apart from necessity human beings are largely selfish animals; some more so than others, but we are selfish none the less. No, I don’t believe that human beings are basically good; although they are certainly intelligent enough to realise that we must have a certain degree of order so that the elite ten percent of the population can benefit. If it were the case that human beings were basically good we would already live in a better society than we are living in now.

I believe, despite the good intentions of human-beings, that science and technology will inevitably spin out of control and give an even more horrific potency to the words “survival of the fittest”.

 

[lemondiesel]

Couldn’t agree more.

Earth, is not… just a huge rock that’s flying around the Sun… it’s a living thing.

And anything that has roots in Earth’s skin, is part of it. Trees… plants… flowers… stuff like that. Sort of like hair growing on our skin.

But animals and insects, that move around, that has no roots planted in Earth, are parasites. So the Earth and the plants are the host, and humans, fish, and bees are the parasites.

When we think of ‘parasites’, we immediately think they’re bad, but in fact, the term parasite has no bad/good meaning. It just means ‘organism living off another organism’.

Because parasites live off the host, it is not beneficial for the parasites to harm the host. So you don’t see bees doing anything that harms the flowers, and you don’t see fish polluting the water.

But, there’s ONE parasite… that’s so effing stupid… that it is killing its host.

No need to mention names here coughhumanscough, but we all know who that idiot is…

 

[Moonstruck888]

We need technology… Look at what technology is.

The houses that we live in are technology. The clothes we wear are technology. The tools we use to make fire are technology. The tools we use to hunt or farm are technology.

We’re a technological species. Without technology, nobody who lives in non equatorial regions would make it through one winter’s night.

 

[lemondiesel]

Yet technology is so vulnerable to Mother Nature

 

[tonyrey]

It is not science and technology that will destroy human civilisation but a small minority of human beings. Sooner or later unscrupulous criminals are bound to endanger this planet precisely because they are unscrupulous. There is no defence against nuclear missiles except nuclear missiles. Eventually there will be a fight to the death in which it will be a miracle if anyone survives. That is yet one more reason why it does not pay to stake everything on what happens in this life…

 

[edwest2]

Only human beings will destroy human beings. Those in charge of the most powerful technology on the planet will use it for their own benefit.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

What role do you think Faith will play in your vision of the future?

 

[tonyrey]

What role do you think Faith will play in your vision of the future?

We know God must have intervened to ensure the survival of life for millions of years on this catastrophic ball of fire but we cannot predict precisely when and how human civilisation will become extinct…

 

[reggieM]

We know God must have intervened to ensure the survival of life for millions of years on this catastrophic ball of fire but we cannot predict precisely when and how human civilisation will become extinct…

In natural terms, yes. A true prophet of God, however, would make some very accurate predictions.

How do you think the life of Faith will change people in the future. Will scientism and atheism win more (so people grow more irrational)?

 

[traillius]

We need technology… Look at what technology is.

The houses that we live in are technology. The clothes we wear are technology. The tools we use to make fire are technology. The tools we use to hunt or farm are technology.

We’re a technological species. Without technology, nobody who lives in non equatorial regions would make it through one winter’s night.

You left out the necessary further step.
Technology, in and of itself, is at best useless. At worst, consider among other historical precedents, the technological advancements and applications thereof, of mostly atheistic ruled soviet Russia, during most of the twentieth century. If the technology to save the ‘non-equitorial’ population during winter sat in a warehouse, it would be useless. Motivated interest in compassionate application is what saves people, not technology itself. Its the positive side analogue of the ‘people with guns’ argument. Coats don’t keep people from freezing, those distributing the coats keep them from freezing.

Except for a small group of morally bankrupt greedy antagonists advancing science for its own sake or for money, technology is advanced only for the sake of effecting change, whether positive(i.e. medicine) or negative( such as mustard gas). Without the necessity to effect a change or address a need, technology wouldn’t even exist. ( ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ - not curiosity )

 

[illmatic]

Sci-fi garbage. The biggest problem with tech. advancements is that humans are able to exploit other humans through it. Same old story, new means.

 

[reggieM]

Armed with technology, a smaller number of humans has a greater destructive power over the entire planet.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Coats don’t keep people from freezing, those distributing the coats keep them from freezing.

Not if there no one thought to make any coats they don’t.

Except for a small group of morally bankrupt greedy antagonists advancing science for its own sake or for money, technology is advanced only for the sake of effecting change, whether positive(i.e. medicine) or negative( such as mustard gas). Without the necessity to effect a change or address a need, technology wouldn’t even exist. ( ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ - not curiosity )

So you’re saying that technology can be used by bad people to terrible advantage?

No arguments from me there. That’s why I’m a liberal socialist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You left out the necessary further step.
Technology, in and of itself, is at best useless. At worst, consider among other historical precedents, the technological advancements and applications thereof, of mostly atheistic ruled soviet Russia, during most of the twentieth century. If the technology to save the ‘non-equitorial’ population during winter sat in a warehouse, it would be useless. Motivated interest in compassionate application is what saves people, not technology itself. Its the positive side analogue of the ‘people with guns’ argument. Coats don’t keep people from freezing, those distributing the coats keep them from freezing.

Except for a small group of morally bankrupt greedy antagonists advancing science for its own sake or for money, technology is advanced only for the sake of effecting change, whether positive(i.e. medicine) or negative( such as mustard gas). Without the necessity to effect a change or address a need, technology wouldn’t even exist. ( ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ - not curiosity )

Its true that its people that kill people. But I think we are missing a large point here. Evil is only part of the whole problem. Its not just that technology will be used by bad people; its that technology and science itself will be come so advanced that it will not be containable, it will in some fashion become destructive to our species, even though people have good intentions. Not only will technology inevitable end up in the wrong hands, but we will also inevitably invent something that will destroy all of us; it could be an experiment or it could be a weapon created for self defence.

Scenario 1. For instance, in some not so far of future, in a lab, some scientists are trying to find a means of making human beings more faster, stronger, powerful, and less prone to the effects of certain conditions. They are using a new technique based upon their relatively advanced understanding of genetics; but in doing so they manifest an unstoppable virus or some kind of genetic horror. Now the scientists had good intentions to begin with, but ultimately their probing and prodding in to things largely unknown has cost them the existence of the entire human race. Sometimes we can think we are doing good, but we are in fact doing something that is destructive to our lives.

Scenario 2. Imagine a new experiment similar to the hadron collider, but more advanced. The scientists know that a greater level of knowledge can be achieved if the experiment goes according to plan. They estimate that there’s a extremely small chance that the experiment could cause a black-hole which would destroy the earth instantly. But because its such a small estimate, they feel comfortable gambling with our lives for the sake of knowledge. They turn the switch…and that’s the end of it. That extremely small chance became an actual reality, despite the estimate and despite the possible knowledge that could have come from the experiment. Was that knowledge really worth it?

Do we need to even talk about the dangers of nano technology?

Now it is true, that many would die with less technology, but I say that its more likely that the human race as a whole would survive if they stopped inventing things now and got more in touch with nature, developing the natural world through less synthetic means. I am not saying get rid of all technology or creativity in understanding. I think some technological inventions could be considered neutral to our health such as fossil fuels replacements, but I am talking about things like wind energy or solar energy; rather than harnessing nuclear energy. Some paths of technological advancements should be banned for the safety or continuation of the human race.

Perhaps I am wrong; naive. But is technological advancement and scientific experiments really worth the lives of the whole human race?

 

[tonyrey]

In natural terms, yes. A true prophet of God, however, would make some very accurate predictions.

Jesus seemed to imply that only God knows when this world will come to an end.

How do you think the life of Faith will change people in the future? Will scientism and atheism win more (so people grow more irrational)?

We know that the Church - the Body of Christ - will survive to the end of the world but, given the fact of free will, there is no way of knowing how many people will keep the Faith.

 

[reggieM]

We know that the Church - the Body of Christ - will survive to the end of the world but, given the fact of free will, there is no way of knowing how many people will keep the Faith.

Maybe that’s a good answer about the possible end of human civilization?

 

[alitaptap]

To a certain extent, Christianity does that man has progressed and grown considerably since he emerged from caves. Man is a great builder; he contributes much to the development of the world. Note some of this achievements of man over the past few centuries which would lead a person to conclude that man is indeed incapable of failure.

Science. Our grandparents in their youth, had no televisions or stereos. But who would have believed that in the 1960’s man would be walking on the moon? And in our lifetimes there will undoubtedly be colonies of “earthlings” populating space stations and maybe even other planets.

Science has also brought about a communications revolution. Today, we can easily communicate with many people almost anywhere via Internet, or mobile phone. Never in man’s history has there been the potential for world unity due in no small measure to our ability to exchange ideas almost instantaneously.

Along with the communications revolution there has been a revolution in transportation. Goods and people are closer to each other than ever in man’s history.

A third revolution brought about by science is a “leisure” revolution. machines, tools, computers, and the like have lessened our work load such that it will not be uncommon for he next generation to work for a maximum of 20 hours a week. With so much free time, people will have opportunity to develop really human live pursuing -if they wish -studies, cultural and artistic achievements, and play.

Medicine. Our average life span has doubled in the past 75 years or so due to man’s achievements in medicine. He has found a cure for polio, diptheria, and many other killer diseases. He is capable of transplanting body parts to extend his life. We are living better and longer lives due to the painstaking work of our doctors and researchers in the field of medicine.

Social science. We have made strides in this field, too. Man has developed some sophisticated forms of self-rule where individuals have a say in the choice of their leaders and in the development of programs that effect their welfare. Some governments have programs of universal education, health benifits for lll their citizens, social security benefits such as old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.

While admitting these tremendous advances in the above and other fields, Christianity recognizes - on the other hand -certain destructive tendencies in man. We are both builders and destroyers; we are living paradoxes. Evidences of evil and sin in the world are present all around us.

 

[tonyrey]

We know that the Church - the Body of Christ - will survive to the end of the world but, given the fact of free will, there is no way of knowing how many people will keep the Faith.

The Pope’s warning about the increasing intolerance of religion in secular society suggests that eventually there may well be a small Christian community similar to the early Church in the Catacombs after the destruction of Jerusalem. This view of the end of the world is supported to some extent by the sayings by Jesus and the symbolism in the Apocalypse. History would have come full circle…

 

[Robert_Sock]

Medicine. Our average life span has doubled in the past 75 years or so due to man’s achievements in medicine. He has found a cure for polio, diptheria, and many other killer diseases. He is capable of transplanting body parts to extend his life. We are living better and longer lives due to the painstaking work of our doctors and researchers in the field of medicine.

And yet man used to live for 900+ years prior to the flood and we have yet to find a cure for countless other diseases that plague man!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

I believe, despite the good intentions of human-beings, that science and technology will inevitably spin out of control and give an even more horrific potency to the words “survival of the fittest”.

Yes, this fear is endemic in the human race and began to express itself after Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the rank pessimism that began to pervade the arts and humanities. Even Hollywood in the 50s produced a run of fright-pictures about extra-terrestrials and the dire consequences of our penchant for experimenting with instruments of evil. One could say that Mary Shelly and Robert Louis Stevenson saw it coming in the 1800s when they penned Frankenstein and* Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde*.

The arts have very much died over the last hundred years. Today Hollywood is amok in spectacular movies that have plenty of special effects but little soul. Forget music. There are no great composers to speak of. Poetry, drama, and the novel are nearly dead.

It is all science, science, science … and technology, technology, technology. Nothing of any great consequence can come of so unstable a cultural system. What good is curing the cancer of the body when the man has got cancer of the soul?