Jonourd

If its correct over the short-term there won't be longterm.

How do you figure that? Surely more money is being spent on keeping people alive rather than on actually making people?

OK. Firstly I have not read the author you have not recommended and now I feel an urge to but right now I won't because I know it will confuse the badly proposed questions as I am obviously trying to get to grips with something here. I agree we are nature therefore we are part of natural law and our nature is to be inquisitive or enquire and as a result we have science and philosophy etc. For the record I believe in these processes of thinking. However at the risk of sounding and appearing thick, if the population increases, if life is sustained, if population growth increases, if a scientific/health goal is longevity, if large populations to do not acknowledge scientific discoveries where we are asking the population of the planet to use and consume foods that are good for our health that use packaging or that require pesticides to produce which in turn pollute, increase global warming etc, if we continue to use up our energy resources........I can go on......we are basically imploding. Now this sounds incredibly pessimistic I am the first to hold my hand up here, but is this not blatently obvious or am I bringing everyone down around party time.

We are consistently reminded that if we live our lives according to the advice of medical practitioners, dietitians and health specialists that the quality of our lives will make for greater life satisfaction. Science develops products and processes to give us longevity. Is this approach good or are we defying natural law? Have we created a dilemma in temrs of health? It reminds me of the star trek episode where an alien planet was so packed the aliens were jammed up against their spaceship when it landed!

Maybe I should start a new thread at this point surrounding health.

AIDS is enough to start with and I wish I didn't have to mention it. Have we created more life than the world can actually handle?

We may very well end up at that point shortly, full circle based on our sientific achievements to date, isn't that why our countries are passing ecological laws world wide right now? Based on what we have achieved we are under threat because our ideas fell into the wrong hands of responsibility? Where is the responsibility of science and scientists in how their findings and into whose hands do the findings fall are regulated?

Yes pretty it is the jist, apologies for long delay had to drive a few hours. Whether or not our discoveries in science has created life is not the question, has it saved life for the greater part. Our discoveries have also created many diseases as well as prevented them. Intersting point but many suffered from cancers that developed after the event. So if the planet is threatened from pollution as a result of scientific discovery invention is this not an issue or am I being too simlistic here. If the practice of scientific investigation did not exist we would not have carbon emmissions would we?

I think language will always be a problem and I could have made my points clearer. I understand your points and they are very relevant, it is not that science is at fault but then again we have made the term and we have made the process of research within the term, we are science if you like. We have also made that process in the full knowledge that when good men associate, bad men conspire. That is fact. So, what has science done to deter this inevitable situation where good intellect is re-appropriated for something in the negative? How can we protect the abuse of science?

OK well if we weigh it up though, all that has been achieved by the greats of science say in the last 250 years all that knowledge that has been put to use, has it been put to use for the furtherment of man in the context of good and preservation in the longterm or has science been used largely by generations for the short-term and generation after generation has had to struggle with how scientific knowledge is appropriated.

Science has advanced radically in the last 200 years and continues to do so, has it saved lives or cost lives?