Science: a Menace to Civilisation?

Darwin. Feynman. Einstein. Newton.

All four of them were revolutionaries in science, and have become immoralized in history ever since. Science has been an important, and one of the main fields of research, and has been paid much attention. Knowledge is not the only thing that the study of science has produced. The vaccine, the Internet, the lightbulb, are all innovations which depend highly on modern science. However, science does not only produce innovations which make our lives better. The atom bomb and biological weapons of mass destruction have certainly done so, for one. This leads to an interesting question. Is modern science truly a marvel, or does it do far more harm than it does good?

Firstly, I feel that the benefits of modern science more than outweigh its costs. Science has provided us with a much more comfortable lifestyle, with air-conditioning, lights, a continual water supply, so on and so forth. Science has also saved many lives, one of the most prominent examples being in the field of medicine, namely, the vaccine, which is an ingenious method of immunization against a pathogen, by first innoculating the patient with possibly a weakened form of the pathogen, with its greatest success would probably be the complete eradication of smallpox. People may argue that science has produced weapons of mass destruction, such as the atom bomb, which can kill a million people in a single instant. Yes, I concede that that is certainly true; however, people do change. After the experiences in the Cold War, and World War II, most nations have banned nuclear fission technology, and weapons of mass destruction. Of course, not all nations agree to this; and this is one of the downsides of science. In the end, however, I feel that the overall benefits still outweigh the costs of science, as it helps so many more people, and raises their quality of life, than it harms.

However, science does interefere with ethics quite a lot, and this an become a major problem, especially in the area of stem cell research. Stem cell research is an upcoming field of research which has been hailed as being an extremely effective type of regenerative medication, and at the same time, smitten by critics for violating human rights. Typically, stem cell research usually involves either the usage of embryonic stem cells extracted from human embryos, or the usage of adult stem cells. However, using embryonic stem cells kills the embryo. The question now is: are embryos considered human beings? If so, using embryonic stem cells would be equivalent to murder, the violation of a person's right to life. If not, the usage of such cells is justified. This issue is hard to settle and is highly debatable. Fortunately, using stem cells from adult, which leaves the adult healthy, seems to be a possible way out, but this still does emphasize the fact that some areas of science can fall into moral grey areas, which can lead to many ethical problems.

The most important thing is that modern science, I feel, cannot be said to be either 'good', or 'bad', like an atom bomb cannot be said to be 'good' or 'bad'. Science (and atom bombs) is merely a tool, to be utilised by humans. It therefore boils down to whether people can actually be trusted with science. Humans, by nature, are selfish, and are bound to try to take advantage of science, possibly to inflict harm on others for one's personal gain. The usage of science only for good depends on whether we, as humans, are able to restrict our selfish impulses. This is unlikely to be achievable, because as long as science and technology remains available to everyone, there are likely to be some people who use science for the wrong purposes. Science is a menace, but only in the wrong hands.

Hence, I would take a more balanced stand on this issue: Science certainly contributes greatly to the society, however, it does has it drawbacks, which cannot be ignored. It is not a menace to civilization, but neither is it something which only brings good to the society.

Should we exercise censorship of pornography?

Due to the advent of the Internet, there is undoubtedly much more pornography available nowadays as compared to, say, 20 or 30 years ago. What is pornography? Pornography, as one might be surprised to know, covers many types of media, not just restricted to obscene pictures or videos to arouse sexual feelings. Pornography refers to the use of media, such as words, pictures, videos, even dances, which are about or arouse sexuality which is traditionally taboo in many cultures. The question now is: should we exercise censorship of pornography?

Pornography has many ill effects, including addiction, which may even lead to sexual abusal of people of the opposite sex. This can translate into many societal problems, including a rising rate of rape, to fulfil sexual fantasies depicted, and encouraged by, pornography. With pornography, especially violent forms of pornography, this can lead to a depreciation of the opposite gender, from full, human beings, to mere, shallow objects of sexual desire. Being humans, we have a quality, called morality, which seperates us from animals. Morality is what allows us to designate rights for ourselves, and it is why we have to ability to assign rights to animals. We are not animals, and reproduction is not our only goal in life, and this is what we must recognize. Furthermore, people also have dignity, and this dignity must be recognized and respected, not violated through sexual abuse, which pornographic materials can suggest. This is definitely a convoluted view of uour society, which cannot be tolerated, in order to maintain peace, stability, and the protection of basic human rights and virtues. Hence, pornographic materials can, at worst, may be the root cause of violent crimes of rape and sexual abuse, while at best, would probably contort a person's view of people of the opposite gender, and of society as a whole, and definitely deserve some form of censorship.

In addition, pornography also can create religious problems. This is probably most visible in places where the major religion is extremely conservative. Such a religion would be Islam, which is known for the rather conservative role that women play in an Islamic society. Also, Islam is an extremely sensitive religion as well, which further complicates matters. Just last year, Malaysian Islam implemented a rather well-publicised anti-pornography law, banning all forms of pornography, not just restricted to things like paedophilic videos or images which tend to be revolting to mostly any person, but also dances or artistic performances with sexual elements as well. Several dance troupes were even told to cut down on hip swaying, as it had sexual connotations. Different religions have different beliefs, and we have to be mindful of them, and respect them. Pornography violates these religious beliefs, and thus, proper (and prompt) censorship should be enforced.

However, this censorship of pornography must be carefully applied; things like literature, which involves sexuality, or a discussion of it, as one of its main features, could be lost if they were censored. Literature is meant for free expression, and free expression is valuable. Milder forms of pornography should be tolerated, such as sexuality in literature. In good literature, sexuality is more often than not means to an end, rather than being an end in itself. Simply put, few books involving sexuality are written for the sake of sexual arousal itself. Good literature often employs sexuality to prove a point, or as an example instead. Take the example of Brave New World, which employs sexuality to show the moral corruption of a society where the people have all that they want, and never want more than they can have. Censorship should be properly managed, in order to preserve valuable ideas.

All in all, pornography, in all it forms, appear in many different places; and censorship should be present, though properly managed to prevent the loss of valuable ideas.