in my ap literature class, we were reading huxly's brave new world which led to the discussion of the limit of science. if any of you are familuar with the book, Mond said something like science is dangerous and should be chaned and muzzled.

Now, with this, we put ourselves into a connundrum trying to deceide if and where a line should be drawn to where science should not be practiced.

the line is ambiguous, and, i think, should be drawn by our morals, however, our ethics prevent us from having moderate morals and thus chemical and biological weapons are piled in countries such as the united states, russia, and according to the u.n., the uk.

or ponder this. stem cell research. it may come to the point where life is being destoryed to save or creat a life. aren't we back where we started?

and thus, if science is able to save lives or perserve them better, the world will become over populated. oversaturation will conciderably lower the current standard of living.

what do you think?