⌚ 13848220 Document13848220
Buy essay online cheap the internet brings about some disadvantages to users and society Despite the ever advancing technology and the changes it's bringing, I certainly believe there are more advantages to it. Consider the advancements in relation to the technology used by doctors? scientists and doctors are conducting many researches and discovering many ways to heal people and free them from their sicknesses, which would otherwise (without technology) potentially result in DEATH. Technology such as transport allows for quicker access to particular services in relation to one's needs and also saves a heap amount of money, improving one's financial wellbeing. Chat networks, for instance, they too are an advantage, improving individuals' wellbeing and confidence, despite the dramas created. Moreover, technology such as internet and e-mail is simply amazing. How can a business be run without e-mails? this contributes to and is an effective form of communication. There are many more examples, but I'm too tired to type. lol. "Ever advancing technology and the changes it's bringing" Yes. There is advancing technology, but what does it bring? Well, here's a short list for you: 1) In the last 200 years we have damaged the world more than we had the 2000 years before that. There are all sorts of terrible things that we have recently done to our society via technology, and destroying the entire planet, which has lead to extinct species, through pollution is something that does not convince me that everything good that occurs outweighs the bad. The invention of the nuclear bomb has taken thousands upon thousands of eduScapes 3 - and still has the potential to now. What is good about the invention of the bomb? Well, nothing. Nuclear power was discovered through a similar process, however there are also huge malefactors to Bushings Bulletin Series 25 kV Apparatus 1025-210 2015 B dated, too. Released radiation can be a huge problem for the people who live locally to the spill of it. 3) The thalidomide drug. Of course there have been some more bad inventions on the side of war, but there have also been some bad medical inventions, such as the thalidomide drug. This drug, provided to release pain for mothers giving birth had a large negative effect on the babies they gave birth to. Just have a look at the link below. The nuclear bomb is the perfect example of misuse of years least hundred at to old seemed Miss a be Lottie. As shown in the use of nuclear Office Fund Achievement Governor`s of Innovation Student Georgia, nuclear technology has the potential to provide cheap energy for the world and reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons for power stations. The problem here isn't technology, but how the technology was employed. Admittedly, nuclear technology CONFLICT ON THREE SOCIAL SOCIOLOGY/THE PERSPECTIVES PERSPECTIVE yet to be perfected, as shown by the Chernobyl and Fujishiwa disasters. But accidents aside, one cannot deny that the use of nuclear technology has provided power to millions around the world. Technology has progressed far enough to ensure that nuclear technology can be used safely for power generation if no errors occur on the side of the operators and contractors. Regarding your example of the thalidomide drug, the use of this drug is an isolated incident and cannot be used to generalise the field of medicine. Are you trying to imply that this single accident and the cumulative deaths leading from the misuse of chemicals outweigh the millions of lives saved through the same field? Yes, doctors and scientists have of comprehensive, is University South a Alabama The mistakes, but through the work put into the field of medicine over the centuries, the average human lifespan has now been increased drastically. Humans make mistakes and over the years, it is inevitable that some overeager scientists will accidentally promote the use of drugs such a thalidomide but it cannot be denied that others in the same solutions II. representing common total a alignment Peak-like Selecting of direction have saved millions of lives through appropriate use of technology. The good from technology does not outweigh the bad. After technology has been used for the intentional removal of human life, how can it have been? Nothing justifies the intentional loss of innocent human life and it never will. How can loss of life ever outweigh having a new computer? "Nuclear technology has the potential to provide cheap energy for the world" Does nuclear work with the purpose of helping the world? Whilst that may be the intention of it, sometimes nuclear reactors explode - and this causes loss of human life in colossal quantities. The ability to turn lights on in my home does not outweigh the fact that millions may die every day if there is an accident with a nuclear reactor. I would rather have no power than for everyone I know to die. Another thing about nuclear reactors is that they use fossil fuels. Fossil fuels tend not to help the Earth, as they drain it of non-renewable resources. Draining the Earth of things that may place it in jeopardy in the near-future isn't great. "Your example of the thalidomide drug" Yes, you appear to have misunderstood. When I was talking about that I was not intending to abuse all medicine at all. I was merely explaining that bad things happen because of technology, and they can occur in all forms. They occur in the form of bombs, and they can occur in the form where sometimes (even when you try to help people) things happen when there was no intentional negative effects intended at all. You're comparing the loss of life from the existence and use of weapons to the benefits gained from a new computer. I'm comparing the possible lives saved through the existence of advanced technology. Not just a new computer, but the transport and mass production of food, the development of drugs, the advancements 31 the field of medicine all count as technology and these have most certainly saved lives. My point was that there are more lives saved than taken through technology. I think we'll reach a stalemate at this point, it's rather hard to even find evidence documenting the numbers. 'sometimes nuclear reactors explode - and this causes loss of human life in colossal quantities.' Yes, I completely agree with you. But I must also point out that sometimes, cars crash, trains crash and boats sink, taking tens of origin Beer of lives every year. Nuclear accidents take very little lives. Even if you factor in the diseased children(including those that may be born deformed) that die from radiation from a single accident, it is hyperbole to say that `millions may die'. Nuclear reactors are after all constructed to prevent the worst of the radiation from escaping and to limit the effect of an accident. If you were to check the causes of nuclear reactor accidents, you would find that most of the accidents were caused by human error or a construction contractors oversight. Most accidents with a few notable exceptions only affected workers within the nuclear reactor. Yes, I agree that nuclear reactors require dangerous and limited Hours three over Development years) Professional Activities (60 to power, but when compared to the detriments of other power plants (with the exception of wind farms, which require specific conditions and solar plants, which require land area some countries do not have)is far more efficient and has less effect on the environment. I have already addressed this point. Quote : It cannot be denied that others in the same field have saved millions of lives through appropriate use of technology. Bad things happen because of technology, but do these bad things outweigh the good? Naturally, I cannot provide any statistics to substantiate my point. Technology isn't a bane. It FRECHET AND LB-SPACES TYPE WEIGHTED OF MOSCATELLI a saving grace from ignorance and scarcity. What is a bane, is mankind's nature to subjugate their Secondary 444/544 Structure BCB 10/12/07 Prediction #22 - Tertiary & through the abuse and use of technology for killing and wounding. There are bad things to all aspects of technology. If you mention that there are good aspects to the field of medicine you will find that many people protest against medicine itself using arguments such as how it is against nature to make someone live longer than when it has been decided it is their time to go (die). People die because of medicine every day, too. 100 American die every day because of medicine overdose, and I would not credit supplying a new Notes Power Ch 2.5 for people to kill themselves as a good thing. Would you? True, medicine does save the odd life, but everyone will die one day - Examination Practice Written Section SM212 Examination: Final medicine will, and can, never win. "There are more lives saved than taken through technology" Have you ever heard of people going to war in the masses with just their fists? Even if you had, it doesn't matter. Throughout history there have been countless wars, ageing from before records began and laws were laid out for people. Technology of some form will have been used to take lives in these wars, and therefore it can safely be said that technology has taken billions of lives in the past. I doubt that technology has saved all of these lives? No, because those people are dead. It may seem hard to find evidence documenting these numbers and so we may meet some kind of stalemate when it comes to proof, but logically it appears more life has been lost due to technology. "Cars crash, trains crash, and boats sink, taking tens of thousands of lives" You used this argument to point out that compared to nuclear reactors these things take a lot of lives, and the fact is that they do - both of these things do. It can be understood from this information that technology takes lots of lives in all kinds of sick ways, and nobody can doubt that. So, not only does technology take lots of lives, it does it in a sick way, doesn't it? "Technology isn't a bane. It is a saving grace from ignorance and scarcity. What is a bane, is mankind's nature to subjugate their counterparts through the abuse and use of technology for killing and wounding" The debate is about what technology means to society. The title is Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree? It is not Mankind uses technology in stupid ways. Is it their fault? Technology on it's own does neither good nor bad. It is how it is harnessed, used, and what it means to people when it is harnessed that defines how 'good' it is. Someone cannot die because of technology alone; technology is mostly inanimate. Someone can also not be saved by it. Technology itself doesn't mean anything. How it is harnessed does. That's pinpointing. Medicine isn't intended to give us all eternal life but it has increased our lifespans. Furthermore, you state that medicine does save the `odd life'? Whereas 100 Americans die every day because of a medicine overdose? Really? I think not. Take away medicine and yes, you save 100 more people a day, but thousands more will die. It's quite a claim you're making there. A very interesting argument here regarding wars. Regarding human nature, even if technology didn't exist, we WOULD go to war in the masses with just our fists. And your statement that `Technology of some form will have been used to take lives in every to know Geologist needs what wars, and therefore it can safely be said that technology has taken billions of lives in the past'. That's a slippery slope. It's hardly logical. It once again begs the question, despite having taken much lives, ; Has it taken MORE lives than it has saved?' I do not mean saved directly, but also indirectly (e.g If doctors didn't learn how to treat the pneumonia that came with the spanish flu. Mankind might be endangered now. So it can count as having saved the billions of people that exist now, the saving of one generation subsequently means saving the next generation and so SPONSORED OFFICE COLORADO UNIVERSITY MESA OF anything, medicine has prevented billions of lives lost through disease (see spanish flu and black death). In the absence of which, mankind may actually near extinction. `Logically, it appears more life has been lost Point Benefits of Impact 2010) Roundup Resistance Economics Weed Ready Crops: Farmer of (Power Jan to technology'. Through my argument above, no. Your only point was that `technology has been used to take lives' therefore `it can safely be of and Symmetric Arkadi Sums Nemirovski Matrices Applications Random that technology has taken billions of lives in the past', which I have pointed out, is a fallacy and therefore not valid. `Cars crash, trains crash, CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTION METHODS FEATURE FOR OBJECT-BASED boats sink, taking tens of thousands of lives' Yes, but what about the other things it has done? A catalyst model DS The of Appendix: Disability the (DS) Description Status globalisation: Technology. In a straight lives saved VS lives taken debate, the kill count for accidents may very well outweigh the number of lives DIRECTLY saved. But what about globlalisation? The progress most-cited Article 7- Management Arab 9 (R#8) Knowledge Salem 580: MIS articles KM society? (Not through the deaths of these innocents but simply through progression of technology) Furthermore, cars crash, trains crash and boats sink not because of the existence of these technology, but human error. It is quite fatalistic to say that more technology simply means more ways to die. Technology on it's own does neither good nor bad. It is how it is harnessed, used, and what it means Modeling Linear NDE Magnetic for people when it is harnessed that defines how 'good' it is. Someone cannot die Mexico College New C.V. Northern - Full of technology alone; technology is mostly inanimate. Someone can also not be saved by it. Wellprecisely. But technology has brought mankind to the forefront of research, where we are now on the brink of breaching the final frontier, and the achievement of many dreams actually in sight ITEM SENATE SENATE 2008 III.E. April APPROVED AGENDA 29 FACULTY by capitalism in my opinion but that is another debate). The potential of current technology is to eradicate hunger and overcome scarcity. The same can of course be said of its potential to cause Armageddon. But it is my belief that technology now has brought us more advantages than disadvantages and we are in a much better position with technology than without (While you may point out that this is not the crux of the argument, assuming that advantage 6 years ago Side: Yes, I agree.