[Robin_Message]

I'd agree that science has a positive impact, but you need to subtract the atomic bomb, climate change and I dunno, processed food (others may have different examples) from any positive impact to work out the net impact.

[gizmo]

The gross impact equals the net impact, because the pluses are so big. That was exactly the point I was making. Without science we'd have nothing.

The atom bomb and global warming are peanuts compared to the upside of science. So there's no subtraction to be made.

[philwelch]

I wouldn't be so sure. Global warming and the atom bomb are just the first of many existential threats we'll have down the road that might leave us worse off than simple primitivism would have left us.

[Retric]

Without science the human population would be something like 20 million people fighting war, disease, and starvation. It's hard to see western style poor as worse off than the average person in a hunter gatherer society 100,000 years ago.

PS: Granted this is looking at science as the basic theory building based on observation that let us learn how to grow food. And carve a better stick.

[philwelch]

I'm not talking about western style poor, I'm talking about post-nuclear war style dead, or post-nanotech style grey goo that used to be people. That's why I said "existential threat" (i.e. threats to our existence), not "existential angst".

I don't disagree that science is a net win, but there's some chance that we will use science to extinct the human race or make the earth uninhabitable, in the long run.

[Retric]

Post-nuclear war there would still be more people than before science. We don't have grey goo so suggesting it's an issue is probably overblown.

PS: Killing off 99.5% of the world's population would be really hard, and there would still be more people alive than before science.