It's no doubt that science has advanced over the years. As technology becomes more advanced, potential dangerous outcomes also arise. (Just look at nuclear weaponry for instance).

But science has provided an aid in understanding how our world works - from space to the human body. (Without it, vaccines wouldn't have been developed).

So what do you think?
Is science more capable of killing than curing or vice-versa?

I think if people didn't use science for ill purposes such as weapons and killing, we would have much more cures. People focus too much on have more superior weapons than other nations. If they did that with cures then there would be longer lives and less deaths.

Well we all agree that man decides the fate of science.
But has technology advanced enough to cause more killing or curing?

I think it causes more killing since that is what we're focusing on with our technology.

I don't agree that we're focusing on killing with our technology.
Sure, militaries are using such things but look at everything else.

I don't think that science is finding such thing or advancing with negativity in mind.
Cell phones, car technologies, computers, space exploration, medical, archeological and neurological advances.
Sure they can be use negatively, and they probably will at some point for a little while, but that's not the intention and I don't think that's what the majority will use them for.
It's the select few 'crazies' that will/do use them for harm.

As for the actual capability, not what humans will use the advances for, I think it's equal.
Everything can be used for 'good' and 'bad.' (ie. understanding biology and chemistry. They're tools to help us cure and understand ourselves but they can also be used in biological warfare.)

Science is only capable of 'learning' and 'advancing' not using things for one thing or another. That's what humans do.

science is both good and evil... what most of the population don't know is that yes there is a cure for cancer but they won't release it because of "money".. they would probably end up making people pay £300 for it or even more then that. most scientists these days are more intent with making money then helping mankind!

AcidDrop- £300 to cure cancer isn't that bad. I'd rather pay that much than to suffer.

Wow. That is a very broad statement. That is like saying, "The weather. Good or bad?"

Science itself is not partial to killing or curing. It is a mechanism by which we understand the universe. The more understanding, the better. Humans will always find ways to kill each other. It does not require science. Even without technology there is capacity for great harm on a big scale.

Gossy- What do you mean "without technology" ? Everything is technology, but it's just not advance technology.

I mean, there doesn't have to be any scientific invention or special weapon that propels violence. People can use fire to burn things without understanding the process of oxidation.

But isn't fire a technology?

It's just a tool to be used. The motivation comes separately. Did you know terrorism is not new?. Just the methods change. I read about horse carriages being set on fire and exploding.

Originally Posted by DeathKilla13

But isn't fire a technology?

She meant the development on the understanding of carburation and oxidation. We know that now, but even if we didn't we would use it anyways, and we did. It's a technology, yes, but not as advanced as it is now ;)

Now, regarding the thread, science, knowledge, technology, however you want to call it, can't be good or bad simply because it's a broad term for how the universe works, not for a concience. The real question here is, People using technology: More willing/capable to kill or to cure?

Now, there are more aspects to it. You mean, if measured which way has been studied more? How often it's used? In which way we're advancing? And even then we would have a ton of relative answers.

I believe technology is used more for curing [medicines, surgeries, silverware, communication during emmergences] than for killing [weapons, guns, bombs]. How much we invest for either way I don't know, but I believe it's for killing [investing in all the material that's needed for massive weapons, the people investigating tactics and methods, transportation, etc]. I believe we're advancing towards neither [instant communication, massive media, entertainment, food, enhancings of actual technology]. And that both choices, technology to cure or to kill, have been studied equally. We have cures for almost every attack, and we have weapons for almost every enemy.

Sorry for the broad topic ^^'
But I think it is capable of destruction as well as helping others. I do believe we may be able to cure deadly diseases and end world hunger someday.
But I also feel science can be tainted by man. Man who wants profit and power as opposed to just helping people.
It's also based on how well you know science. Any virologists is capable of creating an AIDs vaccine or a man-made disease capable of wiping out the entire planet.
Science is scary - but it's also a beautiful thing to know.

I think it is capable of both.

It all depends on what people are putting their effort into. There are items of destruction, items of healing, and then there's the stuff that's just plain useless to make/know.

Like, the pill that makes sweet things taste sour, and vice versa. If you don't want something to taste sour, just eat something sweet?

I think science does a lot for us. It is good for us. Even though we have to sometimes test on animals and such it is good in the end.

If we did not having science that did tests and found out how to cure tuberculosis than we would still have many deaths caused by it today when it is easy to cure now. We also wouldnt have penicillin. Which has saved many lives. When the iv fluids were founded many more lives were saved because it was found that a person could be kept alive longer on fluids of sugar, salt and water when they were sick and couldnt eat.

Basically I wouldnt be alive today if it wasnt for science. I was born 2 month premature. I would forget to breath and stuff. I was on tubes and things for many months in the hospital and I am ok and alive today. If it wasnt for these things then I would be dead and so would many others.

My boyfriend has an atrial sceptal defect. He was very young when he had heart surgery. If he hadnt had it then he would not be as healthy as he is now. He might have even died at this point.

I guess I should have made the topic geared towards how we, the human race, have used science.

Many of you are right - it is a mechanism; a mere tool to help us understand about our environments all around us.

Personally, I think we've used science in a more positive way since life was started (I mean, we haven't blown ourselves up yet, so that's a good sign, right?) But as technology advances, so does the risks.

I mean, it's scary to think that anyone, with the appropriate knowledge & tools, could create a man-made weapon. And what's worse is, it could be mechanical OR biological. I saw a documentary concerning this, and it's apparent that even the internet could be used for evil purposes.

It just seems so scary, but at the same time, knowing that we're just a few steps away from curing AIDS or any other life threatening disease, seems very rewarding and overwhelming.

Just like guns, science can help or kill.
It just depends on who is wielding it.

Originally Posted by FAGGY CHAN

Just like guns, science can help or kill.
It just depends on who is wielding it.

I agree. In fact, the military comes up with many of the science procedures that help u in every day life, like lasers, new medical procedures, research into new drugs and things like prosthetic limbs. At the same time, science has created better bombs, more powerful missiles, bioweapons and more. It's not so much who is wielding it however, but how it's used. A scapel can be a weapon used to aid, or to kill. Same with most of science.

I think that science causes more problems than cures.
It is often used for destruction and ridiculous experiments.
But on the other hand, those experiments provide us with answers about things we didn't know before.
It's definetly an interesting topic.