For the past century scientific development has raced ahead, while the average person watches in awe without understanding the half of it.
It has allowed populations to expand and given us long lives. However the scientists failed to forsee any problems from their creations; exploding populations, degradation of the environment, social problems and climate change.
Now nanotechnology is under examination.
Nanotechnology has been put into use in all sorts of products. It apparently consists of "re-engineered particles". It seems totally unnecessary to me.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nanotechnology3.htm

Today I heard on the news, that it has been discovered that these totally invisable nano particles, damage DNA just by being in close proximity to it.
http://www.physorg.com/news172328302.html

We cannot escape from this contamination as it is already pervasive. How will it effect DNA? Who knows? Nobody.

Why has technology been allowed to gallop ahead, driven by commercial greed, with the assumption that it is always for the good?

Time to end our infatuation with science I think and engage in some lateral thinking.

On the contrary Christine, it is scientists who have 'discovered' that nano technology is damaging our DNA. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I agree science has the potential to do extreme harm (atom bomb?) and extreme good (penicillin) it is human nautre... and dare I say it, our moral code?... that will determine what we choose to do with this 'power'.

This is an entirely subjective opinion, but I would say science has done more good than harm- perhaps for westerners like ourselves anyhow. We can now live longer, sleep in comfortable beds, choose when to have children, transport ourselves over long distances in short periods of time, communicate via the 'internet', watch tv etc etc etc the benefits are immeasurable.. not to mention the important breakthroughs in medicine... no, we cannot forget science, it has changed our lives by favouring truth over superstition, rationality over hot- headedness and intelligence over ignorance.

Yes arry, science has given us a lot and I am just as appreciative of it as anyone else, however you have credited it with some things that it is not responsible for. We don't need science to live a civilised life. I grew up without electricity and never heard a swear word til I went to live in England.
I am familiar with the traditional Tibetan and Tanzanian lifestyles and although they have few aids from the scientific world they do live not irrationally or unintelligently. No more so then we do anyway.
Last year's financial crisis with all its greed, corruption and skullduggery doesn't say much for our rational and intelligent living does it?
Look at this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/se ... afia-italy
The world says Science is unconditionally GOOD and we can never have too much of it. I say you can have too much of anything.

One problem with science (and science does have benefits as well as problems) is that science enables us to become isolated from the real world, the real physical world.

Global warming a problem? Build more efficient air conditioners so we don't feel the heat.
Poor drivers? Make cars easier to drive, add parking sensors, speed regulators, more police ...
Feeling lazy? Use the escalators and get unfit, so go to the gym.
Having trouble sleeping? Have a pill.
No friends? Join facebook and have hundreds! (and none)

My suggestion is that people need to put technology down their list of priorities and connect more on the real physical world.

I don't think that science has been "driven by commercial greed". Science is driven by our fascination and curiosity of the world around us.

Astronomy is completely unprofitable, indeed a lot of it is- unprofitable. But people do it as a hobby. I'm sure that most scientists work off government grants or charity, not for "commercial greed".

It empowers us. But sometimes we ourselves are not responsible enough to posses that power. Take nuclear for example. Can be used for good and evil. That's where ethics comes in.

And no, I don't want to be that close to the physical world. Everything in it wants to eat us or kill us.

Science isn't bad in itself, its the choices the community makes when harnessing it and the unquestioning adopting of its gifts that I question
Choices like these.
Drugs companies develope drugs for rich people's diseases.
The problem is now we have too many old sick people who took contraceptives and didn't produce enough taxpayers to support them in their sometimes very long and expensive old age.
My main gripe though is with things like the nano technology and the way it was implemented before discovering the horrific fact that it damages DNA.
I know the tragic results of asbestos contamination first hand.
Also because there is an epidemic of brain tumours, many doctors now suspect they were caused by mobile phone use.

I'm generally healthy but I've had occasion to take a few pills in the last couple of years. One was for my prostate. A few years earlier and I would have been looking at surgery. I also buy new, and better, pills for internal parasites for my eight nephews. I'm not righ and they certainly aren't.

There is no "epidemic" of brain tumors. If there were, we would see the government raising taxes to fight it.

Here's some information on nanotechnology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_na ... plications

Television still tops the list for me.

My experience is different unfortunately, I've learned that there is a big gap in time between the discovery of dangerous products and governments acting for the benefit of we consumers
My husband had mesothelioma from contamination in the late sixties during his construction work in Australia.
Q When was asbestos first discovered to cause cancer?
A 1943
Q When was a total ban introduced in Australia?
A 2003!
http://www.adfa.org.au/info-resources/asbestos-history/

I got estrogen receptive breast cancer in April this year after doctor's prescribed birth control pills for 20 years and HRT for 15 years. This was done at my request but there was never any warning of potential problems.

There is plenty of information on the net about the relationship between brain tumours and mobile phones but the manufacturers and governments will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to court by someone with more energy than I've got, before they change the status quo.

I am sincerely sorry for you families problems. Science, however, is not nearly the problem politicians are.

Where I worked the pipes had asbestos wrappings. Tests showed more airborne asbestos in the middle of a large city park than did our workplace. My advice was to spray it with a thick plastic and leave it be. Nope. They spent around $700,000 removing the asbestos.

As I recall what they found was that working in enclosed spaces with airborne asbestos, like the interiors of ships under construction caused asbestosis. I'm not sure why the logical conclusion of that would be a total ban. But scientists don't ban. Politicians do. That's why a pesticide that has never been shown to cause harm to humans has been banned at the cost of over 25 million lives.

I have no problem with science but I do have a problem with those who consider science a faith rather than a process which is frequently abused. And, I don't understand how anyone can reject the process.

or be nice to us, or to love us or to share with us or to make us happy and so many more wonderful things.

Christine,

The "love affair" with science ended long ago in the US. The number of people who study real science and engineering keeps dropping and those who immerse themselves in the euphemistiaclly titled "social" science increases.

Actually Kookaburra I should have spent a little longer mulling over the title of this discussion, perhaps "our lust for the the products of technology" would have been better than "love affair with science".

New discoveries in medicine although admirable are usually for the benefit of the rich and old, however, everyone bears the cost.

Craving the newest and best phone, home theatre, camera, ccomputer, car and house is a trap that keep many poor as they run into unnecessary debt.

I know most in the western world do not have enough discipline to study maths and science. I may be be judgemental but I put it down to the prevelance of smoking pot because it usually seems to destroy people's work ethic.

I don't think I'd say I have a love affair with science as such, but I do have a lifelong love affair with knowledge, curiosity and understanding, and I would simply be perverse not to acknowledge the incalculable contribution that science has made over the past few centuries to human knowledge and understanding. Yes, of course, science has its notorious disputes, and it makes mistakes. In other words, like freedom, democracy, and other things we value, knowledge comes at a cost, but then so – and immeasurably more so – does ignorance. Given a choice between knowledge and ignorance, I know which I choose. I cannot imagine attempting to negotiate an ethics for the 21st century on the basis of ignorance, superstition and prejudice.

Christine



How many cell phones do you own? How many have you owned since you got your first one, and how many years has spanned from then until now.

Do you ever take a laptop computer with you when you travel?

How many computers do you own? When did you get your first one, and how many have you owned since then?

Do you have an iPhone, iPod, portable DVD and or CD player?

"Do you have an iPhone, iPod, portable DVD and or CD player?" No. I also don't have a cell phone, a Blackberry, a television, or a game console. I do have a computer.

I have nothing against someone having all those things but I don't need them. I do think the cumulative effect of television has been bad for the country.

Kookaburra
Yes I do have some of the items you mention, included are some of my children's outdated models that they no longer wanted. However I did say our love affair not your love affair with science
Its not outlawing progress that I suggest, just a more measured approach. If something is doing a perfectly good job, do we need to discard our current model immediately for one with more bells and whistles?
My 24 year old son is in the thrall of photography at present and has spent a small fortune on camera gear. Some his friends have followed suit not to be out done. There is a web site where you can see what products you might be able to buy next, should your impatience be hard to bear.
http://www.canonrumors.com/

Davoz
There is no reason why being more rational in our approach to science and technology should mean that we must abandon the basic foundations of our society, and sink into ignorance, superstition and prejudice. Quite the reverse, it would be a sign of maturity and ensure humanity's long term survival.
I don't advocate abandoning science.
There are two problems as I see it. The first is the milking of technology by the corporate world to update equipment unnecessarily. Wasn't a fridge that could get the internet released a while ago?
The second is the launching of products into completely unchartered waters. Gene technology etc. Scientists have a great reluctance to accept responsibility for damage done.
Remember Agent Orange?
http://www.ffrd.org/AO/factsheet.htm

Perhaps the problem is similar to the one faith battles most. Humans. Science is not the problem. The weakness of humans, and our constant failing to learn from history are our problems. Perhaps what we need is more science, but specifically to help us learn from our mistakes, and realise the folly of greed, and understand the wisdom of the peoples outside the fringes of Western society.

patrickt wrote:

"Do you have an iPhone, iPod, portable DVD and or CD player?" No. I also don't have a cell phone, a Blackberry, a television, or a game console. I do have a computer.

I have nothing against someone having all those things but I don't need them. I do think the cumulative effect of television has been bad for the country.

Impressive, good stuff. I do have a mobile phone (no internet capability), no fixed phone, no portable electronic devices or computer games and I also confess to having a crystal set and two old valve radios from the 1930/40s and a motor cycle and two pushbikes. Almost every day I regularly play a little backgammon on a real physical board with pieces we have to move around a board, and dice we have to roll, and an opponent who sometimes pours me a cup of tea in the middle of a game.

I think, but am not certain, that part of the problem of deployment and implementation of much of modern technology is that it encourages various forms instant gratification, and not careful thought and consultation which is then followed by action. Quick is not necessarily better. It looks like many consumers are demands more data but less information. More is not better, but the call "quality, not quantity" does not strike a chord with most modern day consumers.

When I think of the many brilliant scientists who came up with clever stuff about things - gravity, flying, geometry etc. - and they did it with a piece of paper and a pen over their lifetime, amazing.

I agree most television is useless and even worse, and it encourages passive watching of stuff, which is then quickly replaced by more stuff, then more stuff leaving very little in one's head but a feeling of tiredness. Instant gratification, bah humbug, give me a book/a chat and a cuppa tea any day.

I agree with everything here. Its the nature of humanity thats the problem and its inability to learn from history.
Unfortunately suffering is the best teacher, but its lessons don't carry over to the next generation. Maybe science can come up with a way of enabling such knowlege to be inherited genetically. That would be science put to good use.