Can we control whether scientific and technological advances benefit or harm humanity?

Advances in science and technology have had a positive impact on human life, but there are also many examples of its misuse causing harm. The debate about the neutrality and controllability of science and technology emphasizes its importance and concludes that researcher freedom and social consensus are necessary.

 

Advances in science and technology have been around for a long time, and many of them have had a positive impact on the quality of human life, such as the development of the electric light and advances in transportation. On the other hand, there are also advances that were intended to benefit humanity, such as Newton’s dynamite, but were instead used more to kill people. In recent years, some people have become concerned about the rapid pace of progress, citing examples like AlphaGo, and have called for reining in scientific advances. They believe that scientific progress in the wrong direction can be harmful to humanity. Let’s see if we can really control the direction of scientific progress to benefit humanity.
Science and technology have always been driven by human curiosity and need. From the use of fire and tools in the caveman era to modern information and communication technologies and space exploration, science and technology have been constantly advancing. Along the way, humanity has faced many challenges and has worked tirelessly to solve them. However, these advances have not always had positive results. Some advances have even endangered human life and safety. In this context, we need to be aware of the potential risks that advances in science and technology can bring and seek ways to minimize them.
Why is it that science and technology, even those that start out with good intentions, can be transformed to cause harm? One explanation is the theory of value-neutrality of science. It is argued that science and technology are neutral and that their use depends on the intentions of the people who use them. However, according to Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientific revolutions arise from the social and historical background of the time, which means that scientific development is dependent on the background of the time, so the value neutrality of science cannot be established.
It is almost impossible to maintain neutrality in the development of science. This is because science has always been driven by human needs, desires, and social demands. For example, in times of war, the development of weapons has been driven by military needs, while in times of peace, it has been driven by the pursuit of economic growth and the convenience of life. This historical context makes it difficult to argue that science and technology can be purely neutral.
If the development of science is inevitably influenced by the context of the times and the intentions of the researchers, should we control its development to benefit humanity? Even if we try to control the development of science for the good, the intentions can be corrupted and lead to negative results. One such example is the “planning of science” advocated by John Bernal and others. These were socialist scientists in the 1930s who argued that scientific progress should be planned by the state. While this idea was initially popular, it ultimately led to the atomic bombing of World War II and the eugenics of Nazi Germany. Similarly, group-driven scientific advancement can lead to the benefit of one group at the expense of many others.
Furthermore, even well-intentioned scientific advances do not necessarily produce beneficial results. Regardless of the purpose of scientific advances, they can have opposite results depending on how the results are used. For example, around the time of World War I, a German chemist named Fritz Haber discovered a way to concentrate nitrogen to make nitrogen fertilizer. This discovery was originally intended to increase agricultural production, which could produce enough food to feed a growing population. However, the research paved the way for Germany’s development of poison gas, which ultimately led to genocide. This is a great example of how a single scientific advancement can both save and kill millions of people.
Another example is the Turing machine developed by Alan Turing. Alan Turing created a machine to take over human computation for ease of use, and it was an important step in building the information society. However, it was also used for military purposes, such as breaking codes and calculating ballistics, and helped kill many people. We can see that even the most benign scientific advances can be used for good or ill, depending on how they are used.
Science has progressed from the past to the present and will continue to do so. We have seen that attempts to control this progress can be dangerous, and that even well-intentioned advances can have opposite results depending on how the results are used. In other words, scientific progress cannot always be forced to be for the good, and can even have adverse effects. Therefore, we should leave the advancement of science to the scientists themselves and pay more attention to how we use the resulting technology.
In conclusion, the development of science and technology has a profound impact on our lives, and it’s essential to control it properly. However, if it’s too strict or only for the benefit of certain groups, it can have negative consequences. Therefore, it is important that the direction of science and technology development is left to the free exploration of individual researchers, but that social consensus and ethical standards are strictly adhered to in the use of the results. This is the only way to ensure that science and technology will advance the well-being of humanity as a whole.