Category: Science

Many have started to believe that scientific knowledge is turning people arrogant to the extent that people think that the gods themselves. Agreeing with this view, it can be said that modern science is making people arrogant as is evident from various experiments like the ability to control humans, genome editing and taking decisions that can affect all life on the earth.

Scientists have continuously strived to unravel the mysteries of the universe and explain various factors. For example, recently, NASA discovered that there is a constant humming sound heard underneath the surface of Mars. This Martian hum is just one in a slew of fresh mysteries and discoveries detected by scientists in recent years. The explanation regarding planetary collisions, asteroids destroying earth have all made humans realise that earth is just a speck of blue dust in the larger scheme of the universe. This scientific knowledge is enough to humble us and fear the multitude of the unknown phenomenon. Thus, it can be said that the sheer knowledge that our struggles are insignificant in the vast universe shows that science has the power to make us humble instead of arrogant.

However, in today’s world, man has started to ignore the basic tenets of science. Science it seems has made people so powerful that they have the power to save or destroy lives. This very fact has boosted the arrogance of people today.

Genetic engineering is another example where people display arrogance and try to play god. While in the earlier times, breaking rules were necessary to bring forth better theories concerning our existence, in recent times, scientists and doctors are taking science to the extreme and breaking rules in an unethical manner. A recent example of this can be the Chinese scientist He Jiankui who used gene-editing to provide HIV-resistance to twin babies. The act raised many ethical questions as any discrepancies in the genes will be passed on for generations. Moreover, with the benefits of CRISPR technology becoming apparent, many, bioethicists warned that the technology should not be used in healthy human embryos until doctors are sure about the consequences. Even after the warnings, the scientists have not stopped using the technology in some capacity. In the wise words of Jean Rostand, a French biologist and philosopher: “Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being a man.” Thus, science has made people more arrogant than humble because it has given scientists immense power in hand.

Science has not only given humans the power to control human lives but has extended the power to control other species. This is evident from the fact that scientists use animals for medical testing in brutal ways. An example of this was seen in 2019, when a research laboratory in Hamburg, subjected monkeys to “barbaric” treatment and kept dogs in squalid conditions. Furthermore, pets today are cloned and is a booming industry. Pet cloning industries often tout this as a service that brings dead pets back to their owners. Scientists today are also experimenting with genes of animals. An example of this can be seen, in China where scientists claimed that gene editing was used to produce customized dogs with double muscles. Similarly, many animals have been injected with genes that allow them to glow in the dark, just for selfish reasons. It is evident that modern science is being used arrogantly by mankind without realising the fact that these interventions can affect the ecosystems. Therefore, modern science has made people more arrogant.

In conclusion, though science has made us aware of the limited knowledge about the universe, modern science poses serious threats to people’s humility. Today, people are becoming extremely arrogant and playing god in many instances. If the behaviour is not reigned in then the effects can be catastrophic and disastrous.

In the future, it is expected that most of the jobs held by humans today will be replaced by automated technologies like robots and AI. However, this contention has been argued by those who believe that automation has a long way to go in replacing humans. This is because the automated machinery lacks human functions like cognition and critical thinking skills. While some areas of work in the future will completely be dominated by machines, humans that are not technologically savvy would be obsolete. 

The belief that humans will be made obsolete by machines stems from the fact that today many jobs are being automated. This includes jobs in factories where humans have been replaced by automated machinery on assembly lines. Similarly, customer service and sales jobs today are increasingly being automated by the means of chatbots, automated emails and calls. Automated machinery can do these tasks better than humans and with little human errors. We have to acknowledge that only jobs that are repetitive and require a significant amount of data to make quick decisions would replace humans, but robots and automated systems would still require technicians and engineers to maintain these systems. Hence the aspect of obsolences is a selective one. 

It can also be contended that instead of making humans obsolete, the machines can be instrumental in helping humans to do tasks easily and efficiently. Machines instead of replacing humans can work alongside them. An example of this can be drones being used for surveillance by the US Army or bomb disposal robots that can analyse suspicious areas or devices without endangering the lives of people. It can be said that machines can be very helpful in assisting humans in other areas like health care, transportation and agriculture. However, they cannot make humans obsolete because people are required to operate these machines. 

Machines cannot replace humans in specialist jobs which require cognitive skills and empathy. Many companies today and even in the future would need specialists like engineers, doctors, teachers and nannies. Teachers and nurses would still be needed in education and healthcare systems because unlike machines they can better understand human emotions. Similarly, we might need human psychologists and therapists because they can empathise better with people than any emotional recognition system in the future. The point is that there are many nuances of human relationships that cannot be grasped by machines easily. Thus, machines need humans in the future, and cannot make them completely obsolete. 

Lastly, Robots cannot absolutely replace humans in economic and political roles. In many cases where machines are seen replacing economic functions like accounting and financial assistants, they cannot completely take over these roles. Even in political scenarios, machines cannot take up political roles. For instance, though machines are being used in politics they cannot completely replace humans because governments need to work for the welfare of its citizens. It is also important to note that politicians are responsible for coming up with economic plans and policies and play a vital role in a country’s economy. Thus, machines cannot make humans obsolete in fields of politics or economics. 

In conclusion, machines can work alongside humans but cannot make them completely obsolete. Though it is true that some technical aspects of the jobs can be taken over by robots, it cannot replace all job roles. As long as humans have their capacity to think and rationalise, they can never become obsolete.

What would make a good introduction?

Although many scientists have pointed out that the actual substantial benefits of animal cloning lie mostly in the agricultural realm, this has been largely ignored by the media and the general public. The impending possibility of research into human cloning has cast a shadow over the solutions that cloning can offer to problems such as Third World famines and the conservation of biodiversity that were once considered as pressing. Why is this so?

It is simply because human cloning has overwhelming implications. Its mere possibility raises fundamental questions such as “What makes one human?” and “What is the right to be free?” that have been hotly debated by philosophers since the dawn of time. What is more important is that members of the public who would rather ignore these questions now find a need to answer them.

Continued research into cloning has the most implications in research into human cloning. Even before human cloning is possible, a question arises in the process of starting research in that area, that of experiments on humans. Society’s belief that human life is sacrosanct and that no one has a right to toy with another’s life is evidenced by public horror at tales of medical experiments on unsuspecting participants.

Research into cloning will inevitably meet with failures and setbacks, very likely involving the loss of human life in the form of cells and embryos. Once again we are faced with a question already hotly debated in the issue of abortion – at what point does a foetus become human? The loss of life through this research is a major implication that is posed to halt any research in this direction. But then, the possible benefits of such research forces us to consider what the value is of human life. Should we continue with such research if it were to save lives in the future?

Another important implication and possibly the most frightening while also welcomed, is that cloning may reveal what makes us human. Do we truly have an immaterial “self” that we so often say is in the mind? Cloning can offer the answer to these questions simply by altering the cloning process and observing when a human is created without self-identity. While this is a question that awakens an insatiable curiosity, the prospect itself is chilling in the extreme.

Before we can even contemplate this question fairly we need to see what actual human cloning might result in. Obviously, we would be able to obtain genetically identical individuals. This opens up a whole new world of possibilities. For once, the debate over how the environment affects human behaviour can be resolved. The use of twins in studies of how different environments affect thought and behaviour is not novel, but with human cloning, such studies could be carried out over a larger scale.

How would you frame the conclusion?

What enhancements are needed for the above essay?