Is there such a thing as too much science? A point where further

>>8615950
Define "detriment"

>>8615950

Well, ethics is the only thing close to "too much science".

Other than that science is just a tool. There is no such thing as too much science.

However, in the wrong hands the tool can be abused. See the political and business world for many instances of abuse.

>A point where further advancements in science is a detriment to society?

yes

just look at the internet

As medical science advances, your expected life span increases.

>>8615957
Having too much power turns anyone into "the wrong hands". And that's exactly what technology gives each of us: superpowers

>>8615981
until every child has access to CRISPR in their elementary school, then lifespans will sharply decrease as they approach zero

File: sex-with-robots-embed-1[1].jpg (178KB, 600x339px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 600x339px

>>8615950

Based Nipponese sexbots will free us from the shackles of the vaginal Jew

>>8616025
Civilization and humanity will promptly collapse and we'll have to start from scratch.

Remember: you're a slave to pussy for a good reason. Your slave labor built everything you see.

>>8616029

Not to go too /r9k/ here but if society wants me to be a slave to pussy, the pussy needs to stop flocking to Chad while ignoring the rest of us. No incentive to contribute to a society where Chad has a harem while I'm invisible and the best I can personally hope for from the female gender is some used-up slut who will settle for me after she has fucked 173 guys.

Hopefully women realize this and stop being insufferable cunts once they notice how much value they lose after sexbots become more advanced and accessible. I'm not holding my breath.

>>8616025
why does the vagina lead to an engine cylinder?

>>8616136
>why does the vagina lead to an engine cylinder?

Maybe it is a motorcycle and your dick is the key. You have to "rev up her engines" and "turn her on" to start moving.

>>8616136
To drive your nuts.

>>8616038
But they will have their own sexbot. It will be called the Liberator.

>>8615950

No.

File: 1415703664501.jpg (1MB, 3136x2023px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3136x2023px

>>8615950
There's no such thing as too much scientific progress perhaps, but there is something wrong with the scientist in an ideological sense.

For example, if you actually believe that scientific truth is the only kind of truth that exists, then it's hard to imagine a society in which science will never be abused for destructive purposes.

I mean, there is a fact-value distinction in the world that scientists and various popular proponents of science tend to ignore, especially the New Atheist kind.

>>8616186
the Chadator
It won't be successful because it won't make money like real man does

>>8616025
>>8616038
>>8616382
is this what it's like to go full omega male?
You do realize that you'll never be able to afford a sexbot? If you made enough money to afford one you'd have enough money to be considered above omega-tier

The answer in general is no. However the human mind tends to not like accepting science truth. So in the end it might end humanity. At least by that point machines should be sentient.

>>8615950
yes, the industrial revolution

>>8616190
faggot detected

>>8616136
artists are retarded, man.

File: posss.png (346KB, 1829x788px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1829x788px

>>8616484

>>8616429

Everyone can sell a kidney you dumbass wannabe normie.

>>8615950
Are you referring to such things as atomic bombs that can wipe out all of society?
How about anti-social devices so no one has to talk to anyone anymore, just scroll their cell-phones as if they're still stroking their daddies dicks and pushing Pavlov's buttons. I imagine most females and males were diddled, fondled and stroked by their mommies and daddies so they need the diversion of a cell-phone so they don't have to remember and deal with it. At the same time, they can't stop the diddling that reminds them of what they were made to do to their daddies.

>>8615950
No. There is no such thing as ''too much" science.
Life already comes with a ton of variables that one cannot control. So, anything that we can control using science we should indeed attempt to understand and control. These "things" that should be controlled include but are not limited to:
1. The weather
2. One's genetic composition (This one is likely impossible unfortunately)
3. The way that people think and make decisions.
The list of what I wish that science could do goes on and on. Dead serious here. Fuck ethics. Use science to understand the world so that the world can then be manipulated to yield a logical and desirable outcome. Again, fuck ethics.

Science is, at least in principle, a way to pursuit knowledge. It's clearly not the best definition for it, but my point is that dropping any sort of technological advancement as SCIENCE is foolish. Let's look at nuceal physics. We have the knowledge of nuclear reaction, chain reaction and all of that, but we can chose it to either create a nuclear power plant or a hydrogen bomb. The ethical problem starts not because of what we discovered, but what we then use than knowledge for. So degenerate videogame porn is not science. So no, there will never be too much science

>>8615950
Yes, it was when modern medicine allowed your mother to deliver you

>Is there such a thing as too much science?
Yes. See AI

>>8615985
That's a very pessimistic view of the human condition. I've yet to hear a reason why it's not entirely possible that we can change ourselves to properly control it, at least as individuals.

>>8615950
>D.Va
god damn gooks