The dangerous consequences of discovery.

I was intrigued by how Priestly’s discovery was almost immediately put to military use, between spies for the french armies and even the American militia. Its terrifying and also very interesting how the invention of a simple molecule changed the way we fought wars. Because of this very event in our history, we were able to create chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and even pondered new and inventive ways to operate these very destructive creations. Because of the discovery of oxygen, we’ve opened the doors in both energy and life’s existence. Its understandable that governments and religion should fear these discoveries. Governments should fear them because the information from these discoveries can be used to end all life on earth, or change the social and economic status of society (The great depression for example; New products and new methods of transferring money created economic chaos when the stock market fell). Religion should fear these discoveries because they can have the power to disprove religion, and cause social conflicts. Some wars in earths history were fought over religion. Scientific discoveries are great and useful, but there’s an insurmountable responsibility to hold, and the human race tends to drop the ball.

Which now leads into some of the applied natures of discovery… And one can be Technical Fixes. According to Johnston in his article, he brought up how techno fixes can provide us with aid, and ease to many simple life issues we come across. Because of this we come to adopt and trust these fixes more often, and arent as concerned when new fixes solve new or older problems. There are both complications and benefits that come from this. Johnston continues to bring up both positives and negatives with this eventuality. Our eagerness to create automatic solutions to our problems denies us to work through them ourselves, then there’s also the positive where solving various issues, even tedious issues, allow more time and energy to focus on what we’d rather do.

When the Huesemann couple bring up in their article how many technological influences in our world cause more of a detriment in our lives than actual helpfulness.  This also seems true as our advancements in technology have shown their great capacity for war, and it has certainly done more harm than good. A great example is Hiroshima and Nagasaki, back in World War II. Over 190,000 human beings lost their lives in that tragedy.

Between both articles and the reading, there is a justifiable fear for technological advancement, as much as it has the potential to save lives, enhance lives, and even propel us into the next millennia, there is also its equally destructive power to consider as well.


What do you think is the best way to handle new technology? Should we strive for the stars and think less of how we can destroy, or do we destroy on accident, and mean better than we act?





Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: