But wouldnt that be basic logic ? Something does more bad than good , then ? uhhh ? let's keep doing it till we're all dead
Very well then. Let's agree to this logic and, quite reasonably IMO, agree that if an course of action does more harm than good, that action should be desisted.
First off, can you adequately quantize the "good" vs. "bad" applications of science and show that bad is a clear winner? For as far as I'm concerned, science has done more good than bad for our society... and I'm willing to show my cards if you take the effort to show yours...
Secondly, assuming tech does in fact do/cause/incite more evil than good, do we then throw out all our technology to date out the window so that there is no possibility of harm though it? Or is there a cutoff point for what technology progress is acceptable and what is not? Is some tech deemed "good" and other "bad" and if so how is that judged? Or as you state, do we vote on what tech stays and what goes?
It is wrong to make such experiments withought the outmost approval by all of the worlds people through a voting system , it is wrong for this decisions to be made by the scientists and the politicians they bamboozle,
Very well then. Let's agree to your worldview and stop all further non-democratic scientific experimentation.
Which means that all upteen billion people in the world would have an equal say in what we do, for example, with the LHC. Is this what you are espousing? I'm just trying to understand this point as clearly as possible before we move on.
And lets not forget , THEY ALREADY HAD THEIR FIRST ACCIDENT ,
What's this accident? At least grant me the common decency of posting your references so I don't have to dig them up myself. I'm not denying it's there, I'm just asking for a little discussion forum courtesy or etiquette on your part please.
