Science - a menace to civilisation?

I do not believe at all that science is a menace to civilisation. Science is an unknown fact being continuously explored by man, and even the smartest scientist is just like a child opening the doors to the laws of nature, limited only by the human brain. Science is the discovery and manipulation of the laws of nature, and to condemn science is to restrict mankind’s curiousity and abilities.

Medical science has been the key to increase our life expectancy, greatly. Since the invention of anti-biotic from world war two, many people, including you and I, have been treated with it and cured of our common bacteria infections within just a few days. Vaccination, surgery, genetic engineering are just some other products of medical science which helps improve and lengthen our lives. However, biological weapons such as germ-releasing bombs as well as other inhumane experiments were used by Unit 731, Japan during World War Two on the prisoners of war. With this we can tell that science have many uses, whether good or bad. But science is a law of nature. It cannot think and it cannot perform without the hands of a human being. Hence, it is really up to humans to decide whether to put science into good or bad use, to hold responsibility to control this great and dangerous power.

However, does a destructive power actually equate to being bad? Take the two atomic bombings of Japan in World War Two for example. The US president Harry Truman has been given too choices before he decided to drop the bombs: to sacrifice more than 500,000 allied lives to conquer every Asia pacific islands, then mainland Japan, or to use the newly researched bomb. The decision was simple, 500,000 innocent lives and millions other grieving for their deaths just isn’t worth it. Also, if such a powerful destructive force could be used to arm the United Nations to maintain world peace, I believe conflicts around the world would be severely decreased. Hence, if destructive science could be used in a good cause, and alongside with all the benefits it holds, it certainly wouldn’t be a menace to civilisation.

Scientific research has also genetically improved crops and animals. Most of the foods we eat now have been genetically modified to make it taste better; grow larger to meet the demands of the growing human population. If it wasn’t for genetic engineering the world would be in a shortage of food with the limited arable land the earth has. Imagine vivisection without anaesthesia. If it wasn’t for science to invent anaesthetics many would have to undergo the pain and sufferings to cure ourselves of serious illnesses. Child mortality rates have been severely decreased over the past few centuries thanks to science. If it wasn’t for improved medical conditions many of us would already be victims of it.

Science has also improved our living conditions, and has equipped us with various technological devices and has improved communications all around the world. Technological advances have only been possible because of various discoveries of scientific knowledge put into practice. If it wasn’t for science our knowledge of people living in other countries would be greatly reduced. Hence, science could not possibly be a menace to our civilisation with so many benefits it raised.

Many questioned science for experimenting on animals, violating animal rights. However, should our knowledge be hindered by the fact that animal experimenting is cruel and immoral? Should we take human experimentation over animals if this is the case, like the Nazis and the Japanese did in World War Two? Which would be more cruel and immoral? Refusing to use animal experimentations to develop cures for humans would be childish and stupid. Many people have been outraged by such experiments, yet they themselves have been using the cures once experimented on animals. Therefore, to condemn science is an act of idiocy and to command the powers it beholds is ultimately up to ourselves.