Question

Science has proved to be more a curse than a blessing

Answer 1

Answer:

I disagree.

The negative factors in your brief list are consequences of how science has been used, not of science itself. In addition, you only list negative consequences of how science has been used, without attempting to counterbalance the list with positive consequences.

If you wish to argue in a more impartial way, you should attempt to list the positive and negative consequences for each major scientific advancement. There is of course a very high subjectivity in this type of process, but it should nonetheless be better than just listing negative consequences.

For example:

Increased life span and better health. Positive effects: people work longer, build more stable families, which in turn makes society more stable. Negative effects: people invest their increased life spans and economic productivity into a higher reproduction rate, thus resulting in overcrowding, faster depletion of natural resources, and potentially less stable society.

Internal combustion engines. Positive effects: cheaper and faster transportation than ox carts. Increase in size of largest loads and more efficient long-distance transportation, which in turns make industrial development and a global economy possible. Negative effects: air pollution and depletion of fossil fuels negatively affect human health, life span and economic stability. People become more likely to die in traffic accidents.

etc.

This of course does not even begin to address the question of whether science is responsible for these results. It only gives a more impartial view of how scientific knowledge has been used. I also doubt whether this question has any clear answer, and whether it matters to ask the question. Short of burning all books, research departments and researchers, scientific knowledge remains and continues to be built upon.