Listen... I studied Math (B.S), Philosophy (Minor), and Classical Literature(B.A). I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage a bit of perspective on your part.

Sure, read some books, give them good thought, encourage others to read them too. Write poetry, publish articles, and start groups to discuss and reevaluate the social, psychological, and aesthetic relationships expressed by and represented in artistic productions. Think about, read up on, and be interested in history, social geography, food politics, 10th century Latin lyrics, the structuralist writings of Roland Barthes (Mythologies is one of my personal all time favorite books), and the consequences of modernism in the 21st century - do all of that. I'm saying do it. But do not attempt to argue that the study of the natural world is bereft of its own wonder, beauty, and artistry. Science, and more importantly, the scientific perspective, has liberated us (as a civilization) from the oppression of authority-as-truthmaker, and imbued us with an inquisitive fact-seeking attitude that serves the progress of humanity.

I'm giving you a point up - you deserve a second chance.

Pretty much everyone I love is alive and healthy today because of science. I myself am alive and healthy today because of science.

Hell, you can even start pointing at particular bits of science. For example, there would be mass famine without the Haber-Bosch process for ammonia synthesis.

Of course, without this process producing a lot of available nitrogen to use in making explosives during the first half of the 20th century we would probably also have avoided two world wars. Occasional famines and a lower upper-limit on human population or millions dead from guns and bombs... interesting set of choices.

Number of people people killed in major wars in the 20th century (moderately pessimistic estimate): 100,000,000

Number of people in the 20th century saved from starvation by green revolution: 1,000,000,000

Average life expectancy in 1900: 35 years

Average life expectancy in 2000: 65 years

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_d... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

Net 900,000,000 lives saved? I'll take that deal any day.

You don't get to claim the entirety of the green revolution here, and most of those 1 billion would not have been born in the first place if the Harber-Bosch process did not exist. If we are going to go to that particular level of sophistry then I would add the four generations of descendants from WWI deaths and three generations of WWII/Stalin-induced famines/Great Leap forward deaths, etc. Playing alternate history speculation is interesting, but trying to project any particular distance beyond the immediate point in question is a fools errand.

No, 1 billion already-alive humans would have starved to death if not for the green revolution. Malnutrition plays a role in over half of all deaths today. It was even more commonplace before fertilizers and high-yield crop strains.

Eh this is the classic guns kill people vs. people kill people argument. Not having guns or bombs isn't going to stop a war. Some of the bloodiest wars in history were fought using swords and spears.

Perhaps you should

- stop using your computer

- stop using electricity altogether

- stop using any form of transport other than walking

- stop wearing modern clothes

- stop drinking water that was cleaned with the help of technology

- stop eating food that was produced with the help of technology

- stop living in a house

And most of all, stop reading those books for your liberal arts degree. Who needs science?

I'm assuming you're trolling, but on the off chance you're not - grandiose, self-congratulatory BS like your comment is exactly why articles like this get written.

We only know about the threats to our existence because of science. You could not even make the above statements without the knowledge it has delivered.

Its true that some things it has created have caused problems, but it is also responsible for many of the solutions to those problems and will deliver many more.

Haha, good one. I had prepared a rather sharp reply, but just before hitting the reply button I figured this is just some awesome trolling... Right?

I hope so!

It could go either way. We're already well into Poe's Law territory.

Science is neither good nor evil in and of itself. It just increases the capacity for doing more of either.

Although it is as easy to brush the above post off as it is to say 'polio vaccine', it IS important to consider that a large portion of scientific research is funded directly for military applications. In the US FY2010 budget, military R&D spending is $20 billion greater than non-military R&D spending.

Heh, nice troll.

How about cheap, nearly unlimited electricity (nuclear), medical scanning devices that use radio isotopes, radiation therapy to treat cancer, or a variety of other technologies based on the early work of physicists.