TOK day 1: science, technology and my views.

1. My most pressing question would be that of the quality of life and the essence of life (which is survival). Is it right for the quality of life to supercede the essence of survival? Dr. Keith Goh brought out the example of a 30 year-old patient who decided to die rather than to remove her brain tumour because she was warned that the surgery would remove her ability to speak. She eventually passed away, leaving behind two young children. Unthinkable as it seems, she claimed that losing her speech would decrease her quality of life so drastically that she was as good as being dead. But how true can this be? I feel that her decision was too rash - I mean, her mere presence in the lives of her children would mean the world to them; and she could still bring them up (albeit with some assistance) even without being able to speak. Her life would still have quality; it would still be meaningful.
This tragic incident has caused me to ask this: In today's society, have we gone so materialistic that we have neglected the essence of life, letting the quality of life take priority instead? In the past, people worried about contracting fatal diseases and to them, the need to survive was all there was to living. But now, it seems that living comes under a whole new definition: to live, we must not only be physically breathing, we must lead a qualitative life od success. This materialistic view of life has caused us to neglect the essence of life altogether. In my opinion, life in itself is sacred and hence should be preserved at all cost, except when Nature has to take its course and allow death to occur. Other than that, I feel that even in a modern context, we should never lose sight of the sanctity of life. We should never let the quality of life hinder us from preserving life.

2. Does technological advancement mean the end of mankind? In debating the pros and cons of teachnology today, I feel that the more pertinent issue would be: to what extent should technology advance at teh sake of human morality? In other words, is technology the cause of the immorality of Man today?
In my opinion, technology is not to be blamed for the emergence of pornography, rapists, murderers and countless other immoral elements eminent in our society today. Technology is a tool; it is a double-edged sword. It can be used for the greater good, and yet with every good intention comes the bad. When Bill Gates invented Microsoft and eventually caused the founding of the world wide web, he never had the prosperity of the pornographic industry in mind. One cannot deny the usefulness of a technology such as Microsoft or the internet, but one also cannot be blind to the detrimental effects the internet has inflicted on the society. Ultimately, technology is a tool, and it is the person utilising the tool that determines if good or harm is wrought.
So what is the cause of such immorality in the modern age? I believe that we've only got ourselves to blame. We all know that great knowledge comes with great responsibility, but we must also take note that maybe the nature of Man has left us incapable to take full responsibility for the things we have created i.e. technology. By observing what the internet has brought about - paedophiles, rapists, stalkers, perverts, murderers etc. , it is not difficult to conclude that Man is indeed not mature enough to handle the great knowledge of technology and the power that comes along with it. There is a reason why God forbade Adam and Eve from consuming the fruit from the tree of good and evil - it was because He knew that we, as humans, were not fully capable of managing the responsibility that came with such knowledge. As it turned out a few thousand years later, God was right after all.
Is there any solution to this problem then? With the problem being of Man having too much knowledge to 'handle', I do not see a solution to solve the immorality that has invaded our society today. In fact, the advancement of technology has magnified the wicked nature of Man, as much as it can be argued that it has brought out the good in others. For example, the internet has led to the creation of millions of unhealthy sites (to be available to the masses); but countless have used it for educational, and even evengalical purposes. Thus, though it seems that for every good technology that is invented a bad consequence is wrought, I have no objections to technological advancement as yet because it's something that 1. at least brings about a little good in the world, 2. it's something that is futile to stop alotogether anyway.