Will Science kill all life on planet earth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lost_Found
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
not science obviously

i arrived at these conclusions through observation. the process includes thinking for oneself, something we all did before modern science started thinking for us
Observation?
You were there then?

I had no idea we were in the presence of such a venerable elder:rolleyes:

Or have you simply read records from those earlier times? Records that were preserved and distributed to people through the power of science and technology.
 
thank you for this

man has been making poor moral choices for thousands of years
but it has not resulted in the recent and upcoming mass destruction of life on earth.
modern science is resulting in that

cathedrals do not fit my definition of modern science
Then your definition is wrong.

Without improvements in architecture (technology) based on research and good math (science) the great cathedrals of Europe never could have been created.
 
in conclusion modern science is in over its head
it feeds on the tree of life at the centre/center of the garden
it fits modern science’s definition of a "psychopath"
before modern science, man was not massively destroying life on earth
modern science is the difference, resulting in that
You are once again dependent on science in order to criticize it.
Thus demonstrating the weakness of your argument.
 
there’s no exact “d-day” as to when “modern science” began
others have already posed this question, you should check the response as to dates I’ve suggested
modern science began when our tools became powerful enough to cause mass-destruction to life on earth
tools we never had before, which, like any tools, would be misused, but to much greater effect

seriously i am a faithful person. In God, not people. I agree human life likely will be around in a hundred years but at current rates of immediate gratification and the power of modern scientific “tools” we are making an awful mess of things for generations to come
we forget the Lord’s Prayer “give us this day our daily bread” (emphasis on each word)
i strongly felt the discussion needed to be provoked and I wanted to check the pulse out there - hence the “do you seriously think life will be around in 100 years” provocation
wanting to show there is a cost to our current comfort level. suffering appears to be something which we shift from ourselves to those who do not have a say. modern science facilitates this greatly
Please stop posting things full of so many spelling errors. Especially if your going to keep on criticizing others grammar.
 
Please stop posting things full of so many spelling errors. Especially if your going to keep on criticizing others grammar.
The OP asked a question in his title and then proceeded to answer it himself, in the affirmative, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Science has made much of our modern life possible. I suppose he is one of these people who is a technophobe while using his iPhone or something…LOL or maybe even more likely, his PS3…

And he states that a super-volcano (what IS that anyway??) will not erupt in the next 100 years. Wrong! A volcano could erupt tomorrow or even later today, we currently can notice and record seismic activity around an active volcano (woops, that’s science!) but we can’t yet predict exactly when it will blow its top. The instruments that allow seismologists to predict an earthquake may be imminent, thus saving perhaps millions of lives, were designed using…wait for it…SCIENCE!

Science is merely the study of the world around us, and proving evidence we see with our eyes. It is not an enemy that will kill anything or anyone.
 
And he states that a super-volcano (what IS that anyway??) will not erupt in the next 100 years.
A super-volcano exists under Yellowstone Park and is responsible for all the geysers and geothermal activity there. The caldera is several miles across. Ever let the pressure off a pressure cooker suddenly? That’s what happens on a massive scale when a super volcano blows. Very cataclysmic event when they happen.
40.png
TheRealJuliane:
Wrong! A volcano could erupt tomorrow or even later today, we currently can notice and record seismic activity around an active volcano (woops, that’s science!) but we can’t yet predict exactly when it will blow its top. The instruments that allow seismologists to predict an earthquake may be imminent, thus saving perhaps millions of lives, were designed using…wait for it…SCIENCE!
Portions of Yellowstone Park are moving around, indicating that pressure is building underground. And that supervolcano is supposedly a couple centuries past due for eruption.
 
A super-volcano exists under Yellowstone Park and is responsible for all the geysers and geothermal activity there. The caldera is several miles across. Ever let the pressure off a pressure cooker suddenly? That’s what happens on a massive scale when a super volcano blows. Very cataclysmic event when they happen.

Portions of Yellowstone Park are moving around, indicating that pressure is building underground. And that supervolcano is supposedly a couple centuries past due for eruption.
Why, thank you very much! I have learned something today! I knew there was geothermal activity in Yellowstone but did not know about the super-volcano. Wow. The world we live in is awesome in its power.
 
modern science began when our tools became powerful enough to cause mass-destruction to life on earth
So modern science began when man learned how to make fire? :confused:
They say that even a small campfire can cause an entire forest to blaze. 😛

Our earliest ancestors used fire quite extensively. 😛
By the way, weren’t they also responsible for the extinction of prehistoric animals such as the woolly mammoth? 🤷 You’d think mankind has been “destroying the planet” since the dawn of civilization wouldn’t you? 🤷
I suppose he is one of these people who is a technophobe while using his iPhone or something…LOL or maybe even more likely, his PS3…
Please do not diss the aweshumness of the PS3 by suggesting someone like the OP is even in possession of one (much less using one shudders). God, I’d do anything short of mortal sin just to have one of those! TwT So many aweshum games… and I can’t play any of 'em! :crying: (Marvel VS Capcom 3Devil May Cry 4… oh and Final Fantasy XIII!!! Graaah!!! Me wanna know more about Lightning!!! >w<)
Wow. The world we live in is awesome in its power.
Kinda sucks that we have barely managed to tap that power though. 😛 Man, if God doesn’t want to make the world a medieval fantasy realm, I’d sure like to see Him turn into a Marvel one. 😛
 
almost every objection seems to have an embedded argument in it
it is a circular argument and I don’t normally respond to those because they just result in abbott-and-costello dialogues
goes like this:
“lost, you are a hypocrite. you are benefiting from the use of technology and yet use it to bash technology”
but my response is simply
“but, i wouldn’t have to be going to the trouble of writing this thread in the first place if it weren’t for technology, it would be unnecessary and i would be happily planting a garden”
so you see the quandary
 
i must be swimming upstream 58 posts so far and only one affirmative
this indicates one of two things:
  1. i’m delusional (crowd is nodding)
  2. modern science has taken over so much, that people have made modern science their “god”. They are deeply offended when their god is attacked and this provokes a knee-jerk reaction. Only the benefits are ever sold to us and we are oblivious to the costs.
  3. why are you reading this, i said there were only two things:D
 
“but, i wouldn’t have to be going to the trouble of writing this thread in the first place if it weren’t for technology, it would be unnecessary and i would be happily planting a garden”
so you see the quandary
Do you even know what the bolded word means?

What are you asking really?
Are you here to insist on a point? Promote a technophobic agenda?

Or are you suffering an ambivalence and in need of enlightenment?

Either way, you’re not making any sense.
 
As a professional historian, I completely agree with Catholic90. The idea that the earth was some kind of utopia that was incapable of catastrophic damage before modern science is just false. Many of the tools that we’ve had since the beginning of time have had unimaginably devastating consequences. Even something as simple as the “scientific” discovery of fire has caused millions of deaths globally, but of course has also caused great good. The fire of Rome killed hundreds of thousands of people, and left almost 900,000 homeless. Slash and burn agriculture around the Yellow River in China almost 5,000 years ago caused such erosion, that the river silted up and devastating floods now occur on average twice a decade. Five thousand years later, three of those floods in the twentieth century killed 300,000 people or more! To this day, the river is so full of silt that there is almost no life in the river.

Of course, the scientific discovery of the domestication of animals helped end our nomadic existence. However, horses were turned into cavalries, and untold millions died in battle. Does that mean that the discovery of horse breeding has doomed our species?

The load-bearing properties of the arch was one of the most important scientific discoveries of the Romans. With it, aqueducts were constructed that could bring water to millions of people. They also used it to construct the Colosseum of Rome, where tens of thousands died in the arena. Is the arch responsible for those deaths, or was it the decisions of people?

The science of ship building allowed the Spanish and Portuguese to explore the world. New lands were discovered, new foods and animals were brought to Europe, and the life expectancy of Europeans rose by almost ten years overnight just due to better nutrition. However, within one hundred years of the discovery of America, 90% of all Native Americans were dead from European diseases that they had no immunity to. Even worse, the Caribbean remains the only region of the world in which an entire race of humans became extinct. The last Carib, Taino, and Arawak Indians in the Caribbean were dead by 1600.

Well, the very first tools man ever made, which were hunting tools constructed from stone, bone, and wood, managed to cause the extinction of a large number of species, so I guess that the “evil” of science dates back to our very origins.

Do you consider yourself a Luddite?
I really appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response; a professional historian is likely whom I needed to hear from.
I looked up Luddite to see if I qualify. Yes and no. It’s too analogical for me to respond. I have worked with high-tech all of my life so I don’t have a practical stake in bashing this.
I will think seriously about what you are telling me. You see, I thought the scale of change during the past century easily surpassed all others times, and that we required a new paradigm. But I understand you to be saying the newer discoveries will have no more severe impact than past developments. (ie uranium 234=fire etc??) I would really appreciate if you could expand on this. I will think this through some more.
 
modern science and technology are bringing life on earth to an end
nuclear disasters, oil spills, abortion and much more
scientists tell us life on earth has lasted billions of years
but with modern science, common life on earth may last only another hundred years
is there anyone who honestly makes a case that science will not end human life within a hundred years
is science a scourge
I am not going to read through all of the posts in this thread. I’ll just say that science cannot kill people. Science is the means for discovery. What people choose to do with what they discover is a different topic.
 
almost every objection seems to have an embedded argument in it
it is a circular argument and I don’t normally respond to those because they just result in abbott-and-costello dialogues
goes like this:
“lost, you are a hypocrite. you are benefiting from the use of technology and yet use it to bash technology”
but my response is simply
“but, i wouldn’t have to be going to the trouble of writing this thread in the first place if it weren’t for technology, it would be unnecessary and i would be happily planting a garden”
so you see the quandary
It is not a quandary.

The life you seem content to live is only possible because of technology (is in fact dependent on and deeply involved with technology), making your whole argument suspect.

You are like a married preacher condemning adultery and homosexuality while enthusiastically cheating on your wife with another man.
 
  1. modern science has taken over so much, that people have made modern science their “god”. They are deeply offended when their god is attacked and this provokes a knee-jerk reaction. Only the benefits are ever sold to us and we are oblivious to the costs.
Or…

You are simply obviously and clearly wrong.
 
I am not going to read through all of the posts in this thread. I’ll just say that science cannot kill people. Science is the means for discovery. What people choose to do with what they discover is a different topic.
Science is just a way of gathering, interpreting, and evaluating knowledge.
Technology is the practical application of that knowledge.
 
I really appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response; a professional historian is likely whom I needed to hear from.
I looked up Luddite to see if I qualify. Yes and no. It’s too analogical for me to respond. I have worked with high-tech all of my life so I don’t have a practical stake in bashing this.
I will think seriously about what you are telling me. You see, I thought the scale of change during the past century easily surpassed all others times, and that we required a new paradigm. But I understand you to be saying the newer discoveries will have no more severe impact than past developments. (ie uranium 234=fire etc??) I would really appreciate if you could expand on this. I will think this through some more.
One just needs to consider one technological development that changed history so much it can’t even be calculated…the printing press. That was the equivalent of the computer chip, in its time. Revolutionary. Every era has its leap forward, some many, others less, but our divinely-gifted, human intellect is truly amazing.

What about flight??

Just go and look at Leonardo DaVinci’s inventions. And then there’s the telescope…The telegraph…The telephone…Rubber…woops, I am getting too modern here…

🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top