Dangerous Science

[Esper]

Should we still pursue certain advancements in science (or knowledge, or whatever) if we're not able to handle the responsibility of that knowledge, or if it's likely to be misused?

I was reading about a supposed study that could use facial recognition technology to determine whether someone was gay or heterosexual. Regardless of whether that's possible, the idea that it could be used inappropriately (because it could be used to out and discriminate against people since there are still many people and places and governments who don't accept gay people) is a real concern. The potential benefits of such a technology, if there are any, aren't apparent. Given such concerns there's been some backlash against the goal and purpose of the study.

 

[string555]

Should we still pursue certain advancements in science (or knowledge, or whatever) if we're not able to handle the responsibility of that knowledge, or if it's likely to be misused?

I was reading about a supposed study that could use facial recognition technology to determine whether someone was gay or heterosexual. Regardless of whether that's possible, the idea that it could be used inappropriately (because it could be used to out and discriminate against people since there are still many people and places and governments who don't accept gay people) is a real concern. The potential benefits of such a technology, if there are any, aren't apparent. Given such concerns there's been some backlash against the goal and purpose of the study.

Sounds like complete nonsense, but I'll act like it's real for the discussion.

What kind of genuine purpose could they have for such a thing? Would they make exclusive gay only clubs that require this machine's approval to get in? That seems ridiculous...

For the question about pursuing science in general, I think it's important to pursue all fields of study, especially if it could be used in some malicious way. Maybe that seems odd, but think about it. If you have a good understanding of how something works, and how it could be used maliciously, you have a much better chance at defending against it. Chances are, there are bad people pursuing all kinds of research projects. It's much better to be pursuing the same research in parallel with them. Otherwise, if everyone falls behind them, we're pretty much screwed.

So in short, yes, these things should always be pursued, if not for a good use, then at least to defend against them.

 

[mcpon14]

I think the government determines whether a scientific advancement or invention is potentially dangerous or has the potential to be misused, lol. :) Say, for instance, the invention of teleportation. The government will steal that invention make sure that it never sees the light of day in order to protect the oil, automobile, airline, etc. industries, lol, so therefore teleportation is labeled as dangerous and misuse-ful, lol. :)

 

[Megan]

If nobody invented bookprint with movable letters we would have never gotten Hitlers "Main Kampf". But we also would have never gotten translated versions of the bible, different philosophical texts, science books, etc.
If the militäry didn't have interest in better communication between their different units then we would have never gotten the internet.
If the military hadn't put up so much effort in getting satellites and stuff out into space to spy on the Sovjets, we wouldn't have space missions that try to find life on other planets today.
If the military didn't have so much interest in savely sending information across the globe, we would have never gotten so many different encryption algorithms to keep some privacy on the net.

You know what's interesting? A lot of science fields that we know and respect today were originally derived from science used to wage war. In a sense, one could say every science today that we just misused the original science field.

But leaving that aside, science is basically just that: taking a risk in order to climb the evolutionary ladder some more. There's always going to be ways to abuse anything; why should science be different? And should we stop looking into something, just because it is potentially dangerous? Are you afraid of the truth? The truth is never just nice and peachy, but you can only see clearly if you inspect every side of it, which is exactly what science does.

Science is just looking for facts in order to obtain the truth. It is neither good, nor evil and it should never be treated any different.

 

[Evyl]

Should we still pursue certain advancements in science (or knowledge, or whatever) if we're not able to handle the responsibility of that knowledge, or if it's likely to be misused?

i just had a brain aneurysm

i think yes, though. progression in knowledge, however risky and whatever complications it implies, is worth it for the development of our species. research in one field can benefit other fields, as well. i don't really think there's anything that would result in evil or some lack of responsibility or something. we're at a point where everyone just wants to know everything, rather than kill everyone else and claim the glory.

 

[Raffy98]

Should we still pursue certain advancements in science (or knowledge, or whatever) if we're not able to handle the responsibility of that knowledge, or if it's likely to be misused?

I was reading about a supposed study that could use facial recognition technology to determine whether someone was gay or heterosexual. Regardless of whether that's possible, the idea that it could be used inappropriately (because it could be used to out and discriminate against people since there are still many people and places and governments who don't accept gay people) is a real concern. The potential benefits of such a technology, if there are any, aren't apparent. Given such concerns there's been some backlash against the goal and purpose of the study.

I think that yes, we should pursue advancements in science anyways because they could unveal certain hidden details about us or the world around us.
How they're used is another story.

 

[Mr. Showdown]

Should we still pursue certain advancements in science (or knowledge, or whatever) if we're not able to handle the responsibility of that knowledge, or if it's likely to be misused?

I was reading about a supposed study that could use facial recognition technology to determine whether someone was gay or heterosexual. Regardless of whether that's possible, the idea that it could be used inappropriately (because it could be used to out and discriminate against people since there are still many people and places and governments who don't accept gay people) is a real concern. The potential benefits of such a technology, if there are any, aren't apparent. Given such concerns there's been some backlash against the goal and purpose of the study.

When there is science there will always be risks. History, chemistry, physics, etc. they always have risks to them. Also, the plan to see if someone is gay thourgh facial tech is 1) useless nonsense, 2) impossible in every way of the word.