Question

1.We are all row aware that some new scientific or technological advance, although useful may have

unpleasant side effects. More and more the tendency is to exert caution before committing, the world to

something that may not be reversible.

2 The trouble is. it's not always easy to tell what the side effects will be. In 1846, Ascanio S produced the

first nitroglycerine. Heated, a drop of it exploded shatteringly. The Italian chemist realised in horror its

possible application to warfare and stopped his research at once. It didn't, of course. Others followed it up

and other high explosives were indeed being used in warfare by the close of the nineteenth century.

3 Did that make high explosives entirely bad? In 1867. Alfred Nobel learned how to mix mitroglycerine with

diatomaceous earth to produce a safer to handle mixture he called dynamite' With dynamite, earth could

be moved at a rate far beyond that of pick and shovel and without brutalising men by hard labour. It was

dynamite that helped forge the way lor railways, that helped build dame subways, foundations, bridges,

and a thousand other grand-scale constructions of the industrial age.

4 A double-edged sword of good and evil has hung over human technology from the beginning. The

invention of knives and spears increased man's food supply and improves the art of murder The discovery

of nuclear energy now places all the earth under the threat of destruction-yet it alwa offers the possibility

of fusion power as an ultimate solution to man's energy problems.

5 Or think back to the first successful vaccination in 1876 and the germ theory of disease in the 1860s Do

we view medical advance as dangerous to humanity, or refuse to take advantage of vaccines and

antitoxins, of anaesthesia and asepsis, of chemical specifics and antibiotics? And yet the side effects of the

last century's medical discoveries have done more to assure civilization’s destruction than anything nuclear

physicists have done. For, the population explosion today is caused not by any rise in average birth rate but

by the sharp drop-thanks to medicine-in the death rate.

6 Does that mean science should have avoided improving man's lot through medicine and kept mankind a

short-lived race? Or does it mean we should use science to correct the possibly harmful side effects, devise

methods that would make it simpler to reduce the birth rate and keep it matching the falling death rate?

The latter, obviously.

7 About 8000 BC, mankind invented agriculture. Again it made possible an increase numbers People had

never eaten so well, but it meant they had to give up the free, nomadic life and remain bound to the soil. It

meant hard labour. It meant banding together to fight off surrounding tribes who still food gathering,

might help themselves to your crops. It also meant the risk of crop failures.

8 Where irrigation was introduced to make harvest more dependable, it meant the formation of a large

political unit, the social tyranny of a king, an aristocracy, a priesthood. And, even if the land grew

prosperous and populous, any infectious disease that got started ran through the crowded population like

wildfire.

9 Why not, then, go back to the wilder, freer ways of hunting and food gathering? Wouldn't that can less

work and worry. less war, less pestilence?

10 But you can't! Abandon agriculture and out of every 10.000 people, only 100 survive. No, the problems

to which agriculture gave rise could be solved only by moving forward with additional advances in

technology -the use of oxen in place of men, horses in place of oxen, crop rotation, fertilisers, etc.

11 We can save, conserve, cut out waste, but what we have, we must keep. The only solution, as always in

the history of mankind, is to solve problems by still further advances in technology

(a) Make notes on the passage in any suitable format using recognisable abbreviations, wherever

necessary. Give a suitable title to your notes. {05}

(b) Write a summary of the passage in about 80 words based on your notes​

Answer 1

Explanation:

I think the title the technical world.

Answer 2

NOTE MAKING

a) Title - Advancement : Discontentment or Necessity

A) Inventions - Good or Bad

a) Nitroglycerine  

1. 1846, Ascanio S, Italian
2. Stopped experiment because found explosivity

b) Dynamite

1. 1867, Alfred Noble
2. Explosive put to good use.
3. Positive advancement as Railways, Dams, Subways, Foundations, Bridges built
4. less hard labour by men, safety.

B) Medical Inventions.

a) Vaccines  

1. 1876 - First vaccination
2. 1860s - Germ theory of disease
3. Population explosion due to less mortality rate
4. Objective - to find a way to match the death and birth rate.

C)Agriculture

1. settlement instead of Nomadic lifestyle
2. introduction of political system
3. King, Priesthood, Aristocracy
4. dependence on land.  
5. disease affected like wildfire
6. men to oxen, oxen to horse, rotation, fertilisers.

D) Go back?

• not practical as it may kill thousands.

E) Advancement-

1. a necessity
2. cut, save, cut out waste, conserve but keep what we have.
3. solve problem

b) Summary :

Technological advancement is a boon and a bane. Inventions have helped as well as destroyed humanity. Explosive nature of Nitro glycerine was used for both harmful and useful way. Similarly, medical advancement to prolong life lead to population rise which is causing an imbalance. Agriculture brought settlement with the need to build a political system which brought the need to unite power and control. The answer to the big question if we should go back to simple time is no because that will cost lives. Advancement with a mindset of conservation and valuing what we have is needed.