I am the first speaker for the opposition side and I will be rebutting the arguments put forward by the first speaker of the Government and presenting a point of our own. First, I would like to state our stance on the debate motion. We believe that science is good for humanity. The world has become a smaller place with the advancement of transportation through science. Let’s take China for example, every Chinese New Year, workers that migrated to cities for a better living return to their hometowns for the traditional annual reunion. In extreme cases, going home might mean a journey across the country and for many; it is their only chance to see their family that year. Note that migrant workers are typically not rich, they would not be able to afford the inflated flight fares during the world’s largest human migration and even if they could, they usually come from counties where airports are a few hours’ drive away in the cities hence air travel is not a practical option. Their simple wishes to return home are mainly granted by high speed trains that are relatively cheaper and have only been widely available since 2014 due to technological constraints. A study by Dalian University of Technology that same year estimates the number of travellers to be over 3.6 billion, nearly half of the world’s population. This number alone is already conclusive evidence to prove our stand unless the government wishes to imply that the tears of joy shed when families reunite is somehow detrimental to humanity.
I am the first speaker for the Government. I will now define the motion as well as put forward an argument. For the definition of science, we will quote Merriam-Webster that science is the knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. We believe that science is bad for humanity. The expansion of scientific knowledge correlates directly to the advancement of technology which in turn fuels temptations for humanity to accelerate the inevitable extinction of humans as we know it. For example, humans have been using nuclear power to generate electricity ever since 1954, knowing full well that we are still not ready to prepare for unexpected situations. Yet the lure of continuous production of energy makes us turn a blind eye to the time bomb we are playing catch with. Humans then paid for their feigned ignorance with the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi disasters, sparking a worldwide health scare. If I had to make an analogy, humanity’s quest for scientific knowledge is like leaving a toddler in a room alone with a Kalashnikov that had its safety catch removed, it’s a tragedy waiting to happen because our tools are more advanced than us. Owing to this fact, I believe that science is bad for humanity at least for the foreseeable future.