This blog post takes a balanced look at the impact of scientific and technological progress on humanity and the controversies behind it.
Since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, humanity has continuously pursued and advanced science. Unlike other academic or technological fields, the fact that only science is described as a ‘revolution’ demonstrates the profound impact it has had on humanity. Examining science’s contributions to humanity reveals that it extends beyond merely elucidating the principles of natural phenomena. Technology development grounded in science has driven the growth of engineering, significantly enriching human life. As quality of life improved, capitalists invested in technology, generating additional effects that fueled global economic growth.
Science’s contributions to humanity can also be verified through objective metrics. Compared to the medieval era when religion was central to human civilization, the modern age shows distinct progress in various metrics such as money supply, economic growth rates, life expectancy, and disease incidence rates. Thus, science has not been confined to a single field but has served as the foundational core driving force across nearly every domain.
However, separate from these positive aspects, there also exists the perspective that science is causing harm to humanity. For instance, while the development of weapons contributed to protecting humanity from predators, it simultaneously led to the creation of weapons of mass destruction like nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, posing the risk of instantly killing hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, fossil fuels such as coal and oil have brought unprecedented energy abundance in human history, yet they have also caused severe environmental problems like fine dust pollution and global warming.
Looking further into the future, advances in biotechnology are expected to boost agricultural productivity and improve health, but given the enormous research costs involved, there is also concern that it could become the exclusive domain of certain capitalists. Big data technology, too, can provide safer and more rational decision-making criteria, but it also carries the risk of limiting individual potential and choice.
Until now, humanity has accepted these trade-offs under the fundamental principle that “to gain something, one must give up something.” However, the pace of modern scientific advancement is so rapid that the scale of change is becoming unpredictably vast, like “riding a tiger.” The possibility of events occurring at intermediate stages that humanity cannot handle cannot be ignored. Considering the future in this way, the current rapid pace of scientific development might appear negative.
Nevertheless, I believe that continuous scientific progress will bring benefit and happiness to humanity. This belief can be explained from the following three perspectives.
The first reason lies in the principle of “using poison to counter poison.” This means countering poison with poison, representing the perspective that harmful science and technology can be offset through the advancement of other science and technology. While this principle faces criticism as merely a stopgap measure, it can serve as a practical method yielding tangible results.
For example, the environmental pollution problem caused by fossil fuel use is being addressed through biotechnology utilizing the genes of microorganisms that feed on carbon dioxide. A historical example is nuclear technology. While nuclear physics can be misused to create weapons of war, it also possesses the positive aspect of nuclear power generation. Of course, nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are recorded as some of the worst man-made disasters in human history and have heightened aversion to nuclear technology. Nevertheless, many nations still maintain their nuclear power programs. The reason is that the economic and energy shocks resulting from abandoning nuclear power could be more severe than the consequences of a nuclear accident.
Driven by this necessity, nuclear technology has continuously advanced, reaching a level where the probability of a nuclear accident can now be reduced to 10^-7. Opposition to nuclear phase-out policies is also grounded in this technological confidence. Thus, scientific and technological advancements that could potentially harm humanity can be sufficiently mitigated by other scientific and technological innovations. Representative examples include the development of artificial adsorbents that capture fine dust or artificial photosynthesis technology that utilizes carbon dioxide as an energy source. These technologies demonstrate that science can function as a ‘negative feedback’ system, achieving balance through self-regulation.
The second reason is that ‘the monopoly of science is impossible’. The claim that scientific progress harms humanity generally stems from concerns that the benefits of science and technology are concentrated among a privileged few. As Alvin Toffler pointed out in The Future of Wealth, in modern society, the primary assets are shifting from physical goods to knowledge and information. Therefore, the argument goes, if a minority monopolizing this intellectual property appropriates the benefits of science and technology, it could lead to unimaginable inequality.
However, reality differs. Most scientists publish their research findings in the form of papers or reports, enabling other researchers to understand and build upon them. This stems both from science’s inherent nature as a discipline based on sharing and accumulation, and from the personal desire to leave behind theorems or constants bearing one’s name. The technology sector is no different. Patents serve as both a means to protect technology and a mechanism to disclose its core content. Therefore, with the necessary equipment, most technologies can be replicated.
While some worry about the possibility of certain technologies being developed in secret, new technologies require decades of research and massive capital investment. For instance, developing a new drug costs an average of about 10 trillion won. Fields like artificial intelligence and artificial replication are also achieved through international cooperation and investment spanning generations. In modern society, the flow of capital is recorded and managed in real time, making it virtually impossible to secretly develop and monopolize technology.
Moreover, technology developers strongly tend to seek profits by widely publicizing and utilizing their technology rather than hiding it. Looking at apps or games like Facebook, Twitter, KakaoTalk, PUBG, and League of Legends, it’s easy to see that technology operates in a way that maximizes value through sharing and diffusion rather than monopoly. For this reason, monopolizing science and technology is difficult to achieve in reality.
The third reason is due to science’s ‘function of inner improvement’. Science is fundamentally a discipline of ‘thinking’ to explore and understand nature, and was even called ‘natural philosophy’ in its early days. While the previous explanations focused on science’s practicality and utility, this argument highlights that science can provide humans with mental stability and satisfaction.
Many people might think science is merely a practical tool to enrich daily life. However, science is fundamentally a rigorous process of reasoning and a discipline that satisfies human intellectual curiosity. For instance, the scientific concept that entropy in the universe always increases can be approached with an understanding comparable to interpreting the “Song of the Eastern Capital.” Science often appears difficult primarily because it uses the language of mathematics; if we accept this as a form of expression, much like musical notes, the barrier to entry is not particularly high.
Just as literature enriches emotions and music provides emotional stability, science can offer mental fulfillment. Indeed, reading fairy tales or listening to classical music is utilized in psychotherapy, demonstrating that cultural activities have a significant effect on mental health. Similarly, science can deepen human thought and provide emotional satisfaction by offering new perspectives for understanding the world. If we abandon our aversion to science and embrace it naturally, it can be recognized as a discipline capable of moving us, much like Shakespeare’s four great tragedies or Pride and Prejudice.
For these reasons, I believe that through the continuous advancement of science and technology, more people will experience the spiritual value and happiness that science possesses. This leads directly to the conviction that science can provide humans with spiritual fulfillment.
In conclusion, based on the three reasons presented above—the self-regulating capacity of science and technology, the unreality of technological monopoly, and its function of inner improvement leading to spiritual satisfaction—I am confident that the continuous advancement of science and technology will overcome the current concerns and provide humanity with a more prosperous and happy life. Science has always been the force that finds new paths, and it will continue to be so.
