is science [for all its smug arogance and conceit] the main culprit in the decline of all biodiversity?

Question

will science become a benign word again... only when it adopts an ethical cautionary principle, for all the inventions it seeks to release into the world?

or will science always hide behind the skirts of busines & industry claiming..."it isnt us you should blame...its them - we only discovered and invented.....they are the ones who are applying our science and causing the damage".

Answer 1

I believe that science, in its purest form, is and always will be benign. However, the applications of such discoveries are different. Science began as an attempt to understand how (and why) the world works. Once knowledge is attained, then come humans to manipulate that knowledge to their advantage. Humans try to make their lives easier, hence inventions such as the telephone, automobile, and microwave. Humans try to prolong life by preventing and curing disease. That is just what humans do. I don't think that these initial inventors imagined the catastrophic side effects though. I don't think that folks ever imagined that by growing cane sugar in Australia there might be negative side effects for the Great Barrier Reef. Or that when people saw the power of a computer to eliminate paper consumption and perform extremely complex calculations, that there would be such an immense amount of waste (and the fact that we now use more paper than ever for faxes, hardcopies, printers, etc). Using gasoline to power automobiles, mining and burning coal, the manufacturing and consumption of plastic bottles, making tires, and asking a question on the internet are just a few.

But what are we to do, sit here and disregard knowledge as to prevent destruction... or do utilize our knowledge to do great things but at the expense of mother nature? I can't say that I agree wholly with second, but how can I stop 6 billion people from destroying the very thing that gave us life as well as the opportunity to advance? You have to take the good with the bad, weigh the cost and effect.

This question that you ask is really one for the ages, though I would not hold science or nature accountable, ONLY HUMANS. Science in and of itself is not arrogant or smug. The decline in biodiversity is a direct result of what humans have done to the Earth.

My only hope is that science will then provide a way out for us, to undo most (if not all) of our destruction. And as a chemistry major with concentrations in atmospheric and environmental chemistry as well as planetary science, I really hope to do just that.

Answer 2

There are nearly 7 billion human beings. Only about 2 million of them are actually scientists in the sense of being researchers who derive new knowledge from the unknown. They are "science."

It is the worst kind of demonizing to point a finger at a tiny fraction of people - and in this case, people who are not particularly affluent or powerful - and try to pass on to them the blame for the accumulated ills of the world. You wouldn't even know the word "biodiversity" if it wasn't for the biologists who have dedicated their lives to understanding it. This kind of accusation is only a step away from Nazism.

Try to work out a better way of imagining the social structure and management of the world - one that has at least a little dose of reality to it and isn't so radically mean-spirited.

Answer 3

Yes science is to blame,but if you give a three year old a pistol and let them play with it , you can blame the pistol , but its not really the point.We are all to blame , we all cause damage,and maybe if we started accepting the products of our actions instead of going around doling out blame ,then the world might be a happier place.

Answer 4

No science is not to blame. Greed and short sightedness is.