This House believes science is a threat to humanity

Science is the accumulation of knowledge in a systematic

method to create general truths on the operation of the
universe, most commonly referring to “the physical world and
its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter,
the qualities and functions of living tissues.” (Webster’s)1 In this
debate it can be understood to be the development and
utilization of new technology and the expansion of human
knowledge in the modern era, though it should be noted that
not all technological advances are from rigorous scientific
analysis (such as the industrial revolution) and science has only
significantly influenced technology in the last two centuries.2
What it means to be human is itself another debate, but here it
can be understood to be both the collective entity of the
human race and the defining features of humans which make
them distinguishable from other beings.

Advancements in science have occurred for thousands of years

as far back as the Ancient Greeks (who many believe invented
scientific principles), 3 and their effects are becoming ever
more pronounced. Production has shifted to mechanized
factories and even killing in warfare is being replaced in parts
with unmanned drones. The boundaries of medicine are being
expanded with possibilities of cloning and stem cell research.
Science has allowed acts that would otherwise be impossible
for humans to consider undertaking. It has created previously
unknown abilities to heal the sick or destroy all of humanity
with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This debate questions whether or not being able to undertake

those acts is a benefit, and whether science does more to
improve lives or harm them. Whilst this debate is on the
principle in question, a proposition could practically propose
that society hold public debates about the implications of
issues such as genetic engineering, with possible moratoriums
following.

1. Definitions.net, ‘Definitions of Science.'

2. Wolpert, Lewis. ‘Is Science Dangerous?’ Nobel Symposium.

NS 120. 2002. p.1

3. “Ancient Greece: Science and Medicine,” Discovery Channel.

New communications have dissolved traditional families and
led to the creation of harmful new relationships.
New technologies have broken down traditional social
relationships which provide stability and are important for
psychological health. Many individuals are increasingly
becoming self-absorbed in videogames and autonomous lives
on the internet without making lasting connections with people
face-to-face 1.Technology is not necessary for a fulfilling life, as
the Amish show by avoiding technology which damages the
community and harms social relations. 2

1The Atlantic, 2008, 'Is Google Making Us Stupid?'

2BBC, 'The Amish,'
Counterpoint
Traditional social relationships are not necessarily good things.
Often, such as with the family, they were arbitrary based on the
location that someone lived or how they grew up. The internet
allows people to form relationships which they can choose to fit
their personalities and preferences. Thus, technology is not
inherently harmful to socialisation. The Amish do not reject
technology per se, they just regulate what they use in order to
ensure a healthy society. It is just their preferences differ from
“mainstream” society.
The manipulation of life is Playing God.
Point
Science has moved into new areas which violate the boundaries
of morality. Research into cloning of persons and animals is
taking place, as well as work on genetic manipulation.1 Such
work is reckless and involves taking the position of God as an
entity which decides what forms of life to create. Genetic
testing involves the abuse of animals, which are used merely as
tools in studies to increase knowledge.2

1. Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, 'Brochures

of Patients: Human Cloning and Genetic Modification,'
2. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 'Animal Testing
101,'
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, 'Introduction to Shac,'
Counterpoint
The state should not preference individual belief systems above
others and dictate morality accordingly, thus the idea of “God”
is irrelevant given significant numbers of people do not believe
in this as a basis of morality.

The problems raised by the proposition are an argument for

proper regulation, as with any human action, rather than
abolition since the boundaries raised are human creations
themselves. Cloning a human perhaps should be banned, but
not because there are fundamental ethical differences to IVF or
existing twins but because there is a significant danger of
physical abnormalities. 1 Suffering in research perhaps should
be banned, but is also part of a cost-benefit analysis as to the
benefits of such research (such as fighting disease). Such
suffering is not gratuitous, but necessary in order to obtain vital
medical advances.2

1. Wolpert, Lewis. 'Is Science Dangerous?' Nobel Symposium.

NS 120. 2002.
2.Avert.org, 'HIV animal testing'

Parent, Jason, 'Is Animal Testing in Scientific Research Needed?',

Biology @ suite 101, 13 November 2009

Improve this
Science has created new means for the state to control the lives
of its citizens.
Point
Technology allows governments and those in authority to
develop more powerful means to monitor citizens and control
discussion. The totalitarian governments of the twentieth
century (such as Stalinist Russia) utilised modern technology to
monitor and indoctrinate populations.1 Even in democracies,
monitoring of communications and centralisation of
information makes it much more difficult for an individual to
oppose actions they do not consider moral as any attempts to
organise against it could mean arrest. 2It is no longer the case
that citizens can chose to “opt-out” of control by a higher body
by withdrawal to less controlled areas, such as the countryside.

1. Los, Maria. 'The Technologies of Total Domination.'

Surveillance and Society. 2 (1): 15-38. 2004.2 New York Time,
'Surveillance of Citizens by Government,'
2. The Telegraph, 'The Government is creating a surveillance
state,'

Improve this
Counterpoint
The proposition has not considered that technology can also
empower individuals. Modern communications allow citizens to
organise together to combat centralised control. The use of
social networking for the modern movement of “flashmobs”
and the 2011 riots in the United Kingdom illustrate this.1 The
internet allows citizens’ access to vast amounts of data
previously only available to powerful and connected, allowing
more informed decision making.

1. Business Inside, 'The UK is Considering Twitter, Social Media

After Huge Riots,' BBC, 2011, 'England Riots: Government mulls
social media controls,'

Improve this
Science leads to the damaging of the environment
Point
The pursuit of industrialisation and the use of modern
technology require the generating of enormous amounts of
energy. Such production creates severe damage to the
environment via pollution 1. Renewable energy is currently
expensive and difficult to reliably produce2. Humanity is
treating itself as more important than the billions of other life-
forms on earth who have rights themselves. The damage to the
environment also threatens to leave the earth uninhabitable,
which would also harm humanity’s interests. 3

1. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 'Causes

of Air Pollution

2. The Metrowest Daily News, 2010, 'Renewable Energy faces

difficulties,'

3. World Centric, 'Environmental Destruction,'

Improve this
Counterpoint
Science responds to the desires of humans to research new
areas. It is being used to address pollution and create
sustainable fuel to ensure the survival of the planet. Moreover,
the effect of development on animals should not be overstated.
It is true that many animals have suffered, and whilst wanton
cruelty is unacceptable, a cost-benefit analysis should be
conducted. Animals have rights and preferences, but these are
surely weaker than humans given their reduced capabilities 1.
Development has raised millions of humans out of poverty and
improved their lives. 2 Scientists are the very group of
individuals at the forefront of preventing global warming, so to
blame them for the misuse of their developments is
ridiculous.3

1. Business Standard, 2010, 'Development in India, China has

world-wide effect,'

2. Krishna, 'Development in India, China has world-wide effect'.

3. Global Warming, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2012

Improve this
Lives can be more fulfilling
Point
Science is the discovery and use of knowledge. It is how we
became the dominant species on earth, by using tools and
techniques to improve our living standards and take control of
our environment. 1Technological advances have enabled
humans to become removed from the basic toil needed to
survive and to consider other pursuits, so for example we no
longer work all day every day as we are more productive so
allowing holidays. They are now able to pursue their desires or
consider great questions.

1. Wikipedia, 'Human Evolution: Use of Tools,'

Improve this
Counterpoint
The proposition does not suggest living as a hunter-gatherer
from the prehistoric era. It does suggest a simply way of life not
obsessed with scientific development and material
improvement. Humans may avoid labour intensive means to
survive, but most are still engaged in work in order to provide
except that it is now in an office. Furthermore, it is not clear
that we are any happier in this new environment than during a
simpler existence.1

1. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 'Animal Testing

101,'
Cox, Judy. 'An Introduction to Marx's Theory of Alienation,'
International Socialism. Issue 79, 1998.

Improve this
Science is a set of tools to improve humanity; like anything it
should be used with caution.
Point
Science is not a threat to mankind, its misuse by selfish or
misguided humans is the issue. Knowledge of the functioning of
the universe is ethically neutral. The knowledge of science is a
tool to improve the well-being of humanity and increase life
choices. Like any tool it can be misused, it should be regulated
and used carefully, there must be checks from government to
make sure that science does not go further and faster than is in
the interests of the state or than its people want. It is only
through regulation, checks and inspections that we can make
sure that science is used for good rather than ill and ensure that
the research is performed in a moral way. But possible misuse is
not a reason to outright ban such an important concept.
Knowledge is morally neutral in that it has no preferences itself.
1
1. Wolpert, Lewis. 'Is Science Dangerous?' Nobel Symposium.
NS 120. 2002.

Improve this
Counterpoint
Humans, whether scientists or laymen, lack sufficient wisdom
or information to use the knowledge they do have to the best
possible benefit. Therefore regulation is insufficient since it is
not clear what that regulation should be necessarily. Given the
overwhelming destructive potential of humanity’s misuse of
science, its existence can be claimed to be a significant threat
which grows over time. Science has been misused in the past,
but the risk of nuclear weaponry is now so great that even a
small mistake could wipe us out 1.

1. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 1997, 'Consequences of

Using Nuclear Weapons,'
Improve this
Science allows humans to collaborate more effectively
Point
Science has created modern communication systems which
allow individuals to communicate across the globe with friends
and relatives. Communications also allow humanity to deal with
wider problems collectively where this was previously
impossible. One example is collective action to deal with
natural disasters such as flooding or tsunamis, aid is flown in
from around the world and millions donate the necessary funds
after seeing the suffering on their TV screens. It is also more
difficult for local rulers to oppress their populations without
facing outside pressure to reform or stop.1

1 Gilboa, Eytan. 'The CNN Effect: The Search for a

Communication Theory of International Relations.' Political
Communication. 22:27-44. 2005.

Improve this
Counterpoint
Communication over vast distances is only useful now that
humanity has begun to move around more. Less industrialised
communities tend to have relatives and loved ones within close
proximity for practical reasons. Many natural disasters are
precipitated by the degradation of the environment due to
development or are made worse because overpopulation has
caused migration to unsuitable areas. Once again, technology is
attempting to solve problems it has created.

Improve
Science saves and improves lives
Point
Science has allowed much greater medical care for the sick and
disabled in society. Lifespans have increased and previously
terrible diseases can be dealt with (such as cholera).1 Increased
crop yields from intensive farming are providing enough food
for the world (even if it is not being properly
distributed).2Science has also enabled those who were born
with disabilities to live better lives, as society is able to adapt
and accommodate them.

1. Medicine Encyclopedia, 'Mortality in the Twentieth and

Twenty-First Centuries,'
2. World Hunger, 2011, '2011 World Hunger and Poverty Facts
and Statistics,'

Improve this
Counterpoint
Many of these “solutions,” are to problems that technology has
created. Many modern diseases are products of urbanised
environments and the growth of industry, such as cholera.
Population growth has been facilitated by technology, being
raised from lower natural levels. Pollution and other poisons
have increased birth-defects across the globe, and many of
those who have disabilities from accidents would not have
survived in previous ages. The comparatively small benefits do
not outweigh the destructive capabilities of modern
technology. This is especially prominent with the destruction of
animal lives and environments due to a rising human
population.

Improve