Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

riVeRrat The knowledge of science is neutral,however, the application of that knowledge is not.The choice of how to apply knowledge is dependant on the people involved and cannot be easily judged as to its merit until the technology itself is in place.You drive a vehicle fully aware of the damage it is causing and yet can you imagine how much would have to change in order for our society to live without it? Perhaps it would ultimately be for the better, especially if it were to bring the pace of life down to a reasonable level and force people to be more equitable and trusting of one another. It is a cinch that we are not so far from actually discovering the reality of this scenario.It will be through a greater understanding of science by all people that we can face the challenge of the future and not through ignoring these challenges expecting that they will work themselves out.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

riVeRrat That is ludicrous.How can you know beforehand what knowledge is worthwhile and which is not? The knowledge is atool in the same way an axe is a tool. That a person using it can build with it or hack a person into bloody clots does not change the neutrality of the tool.Nor does the problem lay with the knowledge but in our use of that knowledge.Do you use electricity in your life? Of course you do,yet people are tortured with electricity, people die from accidents involving electricity and pollution directly resulting from the implementation of electricity does huge damage. Do we therefore say no to the knowledge of the generation of electricity? That it serves a "greater good" means little to those who are damaged by it.If one takes the knowledge and uses it to harm others how is the knowledge to blame? The responsibilty is the use of the technology not the technology itself.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

riVerRat In what way? The knowledge of the atom bomb is part and parcel of the application of the knowledge of how to make it. If we do not access that information someone will.That it was invented in wartime also invokes a measure of responsibilitysince doing nothing could have had the effect of leaving ourselves vulnerable to others who also can access that information.Cigarette companies make use of chemicals for the value they have in creating their product.You drive a vehicle which as a part of people's day to day lives {and of which they freely if not eagerly engage in} is responsible for many fatalities and many more disabilities and monetary damage.Yet our modern world considers this acceptable risk.The chemicals that cigarette companies use are also used in other industries including the clothing you presently wear.It is not the knowledge that is dangerous but the humans application of this knowledge. In a perfect world. Do you have the time energy and talent to put together the necessary instruments of investigation needed to achieve cures? Do you live in a nation where an individual has the right to choose what he does with his life? Would you dictate that those who have the money invest in this research or that research or is it up to the individual? Your nation runs on the capitilalist system without which you would not enjoy the luxury of what cures research has found or will find.If you can think of another way to do this I am all ears.