Quote:
Originally Posted by All Darc
Science improoved life. You can't start relativism to reduce the harm made by horrible people. If I spread a virus that would kill 2000.000 people, but the science in 10 years of evolution reduced the mortality overal, despite the deads caused of virus, I'm still guilty of terrorism.
People who kill rivers, politicians that took money to allow companies destroy florests, these sort of thing...
Industry made a revolution, cars and trucks too. But science, the kind of one used for good of mankind, only get a little fraction of investment, since most come to army, to foolish, consumism.
Future populations will face reduced space. Reduced green areas. Reduced air quality, reduced water or reduced clean water per citizen. Food can be a serious problem in Africa (it's already). Overpopulation...
Moral decline...
|
It's not that simple. Science doesn't exist without excess resources. If we spend all our time hunting and gathering for subsistence living, we have no time or resources to learn how the world works. The major advances in science and technology are largely due to exploiting fossil fuel resources.
Science and technology is neither good or bad. We can use knowledge of atomic energy to build power plants or to bomb people. It's impossible to develop technical prowess without risk of using it for harmful purposes.
It is not accurate to call someone a terrorist when they do not intend harm towards anyone. Africans who use slash and burn practices to clear rainforests do great environmental damage, but their intention is economic prosperity, not to terrorize humanity.
Name calling is counter-productive to environmental conservation. People are not inclined to listen to reason when confronted out of hostility.