Thread: What do YOU think the limits of science should be?

Im doing a presentation for school and I need different perspectives on peoples ideas on the limits of science (eg like on genetic engineering, using science to kill(eg atomic bomb))

Here are some questions;
What do you think the limits should be?
Why do you think this?
Has anything in your own life influenced this?

And the generic questions (for status and what not)
age-
county-
job-(if you want)



thanks alot :P

1. Creating life, thats a big one we shouldn't play God.
2. Playing with the makeup of atoms, atoms make up everything if someone should destroy all the atoms then time, and space, and matter will cease to exist.



16
U.S.A
Filmmaker

What do you think the limits should be?

I believe the extent to which science is used for harm should be for the purpose of not only peace, but ensuring those who threaten the existence of the human race in the future are brought under the dominion of those who can ensure prosperity.

The extent to which science should be used in life-extending technology, I believe it should be pursued. My goals require more time than I have life-span. Ergo, I would need this life extending technology, but religious and ethical practices currently oppose it. Although, i find it comical that humanity is letting beliefs, systems and mechanisms it itself has created in order to preserve existence, get in the way of something which will further its existence. We our are own antithesis, remember that.

Why do you think this?

I think what I do because of my unique outlook.


Has anything in your own life influenced this?

Yes, I have rather unusual political plans, applying my Hypothesis of continuum to society, like people applied Darwinism to society.


I believe science should be used in any way possible UNLESS it is somehow cancelling out other more beneficent technological breakthroughs, then it's backwards science, and that's not good.