Poll: Has Science Been Beneficial or Detrimental to Humanity?

[charmonman]

Science has clearly been hugely beneficial. How could understanding how things work not be?

Technology on the other hand, more of a mixed bag.

[BKK Chopin]

I sometimes wonder why the moderators of this forum allow certain 'less brainy' and totally irrelevant subjects here .... ????.

Is it due to a lack of any less bonkers topics, or are they all Trump - Republican style guys?

And you guys, you really waste your time and bother to comment this? - ????.
(Yes, so did I but just because I have absolutely nothing to do this morning - lol) .... 

[seedy]

2 minutes ago, BKK Chopin said:

I sometimes wonder why the moderators of this forum allow certain 'less brainy' and totally irrelevant subjects here .... ????.

So people will visit this Forum

So advertisers will see the stats and place ads here - and the Forum makes $$$

[TKDfella]

I think the OP title is not quite right...shouldn't it be; Has Humanity been beneficial or detrimental to science. It isn't science that is the problem it's people, they misuse it.

[Old Croc]

There should be no pollsters in the negative.

 

The non-hypocritical of them will be living in the woods rubbing two sticks together, sans computer, and unaware of anything beyond the nearest tree.

[sirineou]

17 minutes ago, BKK Chopin said:

I sometimes wonder why the moderators of this forum allow certain 'less brainy' and totally irrelevant subjects here .... ????.

Is it due to a lack of any less bonkers topics, or are they all Trump - Republican style guys?

And you guys, you really waste your time and bother to comment this? - ????.
(Yes, so did I but just because I have absolutely nothing to do this morning - lol) .... 

It depends what sub forum they are posted , Moderators close" irrelevant" threads all the time , as far as "less brainy " threads are concerned , they are not the thought police IMO. 

This thread is posted in the   Farang Pub - fun, entertainment and Expat life and as "fun and entertainment" is certainly relevant . After talking about trump, covid and travel restrictions  for the past few years it's good IMO to be talking about something else , and less stressful. 

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

There should be no pollsters in the negative.

 

The non-hypocritical of them will be living in the woods rubbing two sticks together, sans computer, and unaware of anything beyond the nearest tree.

Not even that. because I am sure the discovery of fire involved some  scientific logical thought process.  

I was thinking the same thing as you stated above, Where do you cut off science? 

[BritManToo]

On 12/26/2021 at 5:06 PM, MRToMRT said:

Surely we are not going to find anyone who thinks it has been detrimental? Anyone over 30 that is because without scientific advances they would all be dead by now anyway.

Socrates managed to make 70 (400BC) and only died then because he was executed.

[BritManToo]

23 hours ago, seedy said:

I no longer have Hep C - why ? Science

All the other reasons you list are in APPLICATION, not the science itself, which is neutral

Without science you wouldn't have been able to fly to Thailand and catch it in the first place.

[sirineou]

9 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Socrates managed to make 70 (400BC) and only died then because he was executed.

Not everyone can be Socrates.

I knew Socrates, Socrates was a friend of mine, and you my friend are no Socrates.

[mikebike]

9 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Socrates managed to make 70 (400BC) and only died then because he was executed.

Potential human life span hasn't changed much over time. What has changed greatly is how many people make it out of childhood, survive adulthood, and make it to their full potential age.

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Potential human life span hasn't changed much over time. What has changed greatly is how many people make it out of childhood, survive adulthood, and make it to their full potential age.

I doubt there's much difference.

Probably as many babies aborted now, as died before adulthood then.

Science has just shifted the early death date from child to fetus.

If you add in contraception, the number of unborn children is probably far larger.

Edited December 28, 2021 by BritManToo

[2009]

I can't believe some people voted 'detrimental'

 

If it wasn't for science and the invention of penicillin we'd all be sitting down Nana Plaza looking like zombies with Syphilis.

 

At least we'd have a different genre of porn.

 

"I like the ones with half a face, someone would say"

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by 2009

[2009]

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Without science you wouldn't have been able to fly to Thailand and catch it in the first place.

Just trying to imagine what he did to get Hep C in Thailand.

 

I mean, it is transmitted with needles, not willies.

[BritManToo]

9 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Just trying to imagine what he did to get Hep C in Thailand.

 

I mean, it is transmitted with needles, not willies.

Are you an anti-vaxxer?

Would also point out without science we wouldn't have needles.

So whichever way you look at it no science = no Hep C.

Edited December 28, 2021 by BritManToo

[2009]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Are you an anti-vaxxer?

Haha, naw mate. Had all my vaccines.

[Hummin]

20 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Potential human life span hasn't changed much over time. What has changed greatly is how many people make it out of childhood, survive adulthood, and make it to their full potential age.

Maybe not potential lifespan, but average lifespan have changed greatly. Except 

 

Without science No beer! Think about that!

[seedy]

32 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Without science you wouldn't have been able to fly to Thailand and catch it in the first place.

Caught it in Halifax in 1971 - near as I can tell.

Make assumptions much ?

Edited December 28, 2021 by seedy

[seedy]

20 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Just trying to imagine what he did to get Hep C in Thailand.

 

I mean, it is transmitted with needles, not willies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7493305/

Edited December 28, 2021 by seedy

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Maybe not potential lifespan, but average lifespan have changed greatly. Except 

Without science No beer! Think about that!

Fermented drinks have been around a lot longer than science.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Fermented drinks have been around a lot longer than science.

As others have pointed out, except for those who ate overripe fruit and got drunk, any human intervention in making it happen involves science.

You may be right that those who got through childhood lived a similar life till now but to state the obvious what a crappy life it was for most. Back breaking work, terrible food and living conditions, one bad year and no food, horrible diseases wiping out your neighborhood.

Thanks smart people and science.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

I think the OP title is not quite right...shouldn't it be; Has Humanity been beneficial or detrimental to science. It isn't science that is the problem it's people, they misuse it.

I agree that some people misuse it for nefarious purposes, but much more often than than not, IMO, it is used properly for beneficial purposes.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Skeptic7

[Gsxrnz]

Science can never solve the ultimate conundrum, that the solution to today's biggest problem inevitably becomes tomorrows biggest problem.

[Mr Dome]

Would vote in this but my carrier pigeon is sick.

That's what you are all using as well, aren't you?

 

Come on, what a question ????‍♂️

[Skeptic7]

48 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Just trying to imagine what he did to get Hep C in Thailand.

 

I mean, it is transmitted with needles, not willies.

Many ways to contract Hep C here...or anywhere. And he didn't say he got it in Thailand, that I'm aware. @seedyapologies for barging in. Hope u don't mind.

[2009]

40 minutes ago, seedy said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7493305/

I am well aware of the literature.

 

Having worked as a nurse (yeah, a male nurse, let's have a laugh) in an STD clinic in the West, I can tell that Hep C is only tested for when someone has had a needlestick exposure (or similar).

 

Even if you had sex with a known Hepatitis C positive person, you would still not be given a Hep C test in my country, even if you begged for it because that's not how Hep C is transmitted.

 

In the industry, all sex is considered zero risk for (or no exposure to) Hepatitis C. Similarly, with oral sex and HIV, by the way -- just for comparison. They carry theoretical risks, not actual risks.

 

You wouldn't get a test for Hep C due to any sexual contact, just like you wouldn't get a test for HIV due to oral sex. You would be told, "You never had an exposure."

 

Despite the theoretical risk, there is no actual risk. There is a difference between what can theoretically happen and what actually does happen.

 

You can cherry-pick (often low quality) studies on just about anything actually. Leave the data interpretation to the doctors. There needs to be more consistent data findings.

 

To prove anything to anyone you would need to find more than one study from 1995 discussing theoretical transmissions of Hep C.

 

Jeez.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by 2009

[Tony125]

On 12/26/2021 at 4:25 PM, Skeptic7 said:

Completely agree. But flat-earthers and anti-vaxers and other nutters are totally trashing science lately. Had a poster on another thread direct this at me just last night...

 

Religion killed untold millions.  I'd say science has killed many more.

 

I couldn't disagree more with his science part. I'd contend science has saved untold millions, increased life expectancy and vastly improved quality of life.

Although science has  made huge advances in prolonging life, quality of life and fight against diseases   you forget it also developed fearsome weapons such as the atomic/hydrogen bombs, machine guns/tanks, poison gases,  Intercontinental misssiles .

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Tony125 said:

Although science has  made huge advances in prolonging life, quality of life and fight against diseases   you forget it also developed fearsome weapons such as the atomic/hydrogen bombs, machine guns/tanks, poison gases,  Intercontinental misssiles .

That's an anti sociopathy argument, not an anti science argument.

[wwest5829]

On 12/26/2021 at 4:34 PM, Kwasaki said:

Mostly beneficial because where would the world be without nuclear power. 

As for all other aspects scientists are just do as ordinary people do disagree.

Yes, the use of nuclear weaponry is a negative but that is not the fault of science but rather how that science is put to use. That same science has resulted in advances for our benefit. As to scientists disagreeing? Science is a process demanding change as new discoveries, based on the tested evidence comes to light … Therein is the disagreement as the different tests and interpretation of the evidence is researched. Quite different that “ordinary people” disagreeing, mostly on the basis of their emotionally influenced opinion.

[2009]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Would also point out without science we wouldn't have needles.

So whichever way you look at it no science = no Hep C.

Fair point, actually ????