[firzzy87]

Do u agree that science is the major cause of the environmental hazards around the world today ?? i need several points since im debating this againts my instructor.. i am going to be in affirmative parties..

[AWK]

Which science?

[Polleke]

Do u agree that science is the major cause of the environmental hazards around the world today ?? i need several points since im debating this againts my instructor.. i am going to be in affirmative parties..

I have another point of view: its not science itself thats destroying everything but its the USE of the science !

The science (in general) is used bad.

They dont think in the long run, or they tend to cure something afterwars when they see its going bad instead of taking actions in the proces itself...

In most cases they will clean the used water afterwars instead of looking into options that can prevent the water to get dirty..

Or most in most times: the rich countries dont care about the effects.. And the USA is really bad here... kyoto... etc...

[Arkcon]

Do u agree that science is the major cause of the environmental hazards around the world today ?? i need several points since im debating this againts my instructor.. i am going to be in affirmative parties..

Phrased like this, it's going to be hard to write a decent debate.  Like AWK: said, "Which science?"  I suppose if you mean any and all technological advancements, then yes, knapping flint was the beginning of the end for sustainable human interaction with the environment, but so what?  Like Polleke: said, it's really more about greed, but then, that's the counter point your opponent's likely to take.  I don't know what you're going to say, unless you have some more specific examples.

[firzzy87]

science that means here is the technologies that done by human .. science is the knowledge and the application of it that makes the hazards to environmental .. i means ..

[firzzy87]

Which science?

th knowledge of science that make shuman create something hazards to environment...

[enahs]

It is not science, it is humans. There is a difference.


In context of chemistry; I know how to create a reaction with stuff I could find in the environment and use it to start a fire and burn down many forests. Because I have that knowledge, does not mean I have to do it.


If you really want much more elegant and thought out examples of this debate, just search around google and look at many of the arguments for and against nuclear power (from reputable sources). This is the same thing you are doing, but applied to one concept.

[Polleke]

Do u agree that science is the major cause of the environmental hazards around the world today ?? i need several points since im debating this againts my instructor.. i am going to be in affirmative parties..

hey,

how was the debate anyway? Or you still have to debate?