May:  What's the difference -- if any -- between science and technology?  Who or what controls it or them?
Wayne:  technology is the application of science
John James:  I AGREE
Babs:  heelo
Wayne:  science is controlled by technology, because people get grants based on what can be sold to tech firms
John James:  Does technology always make our lives better?
Wayne:  then the tech firms are controlled by money
Wayne:  so it's all ccontrolled by money
Babs:  wayne, you talk too much
Wayne:  settle down babs
Wayne:  talk people
Babs:  i don't really see the importance of this question anyway.  Its like - whats the difference between a big mac and a whopper
John James:  Do we as humans just have a need to improve our lives, or is it just finding new more efficnet ways of getting rich?
Babs:  who really cares what the difference is.  they are just words we use to identify different concepts.  how about the question is technology and/or sicience good
Wayne:  i think the goal is to make money
Wayne:  and the side effect is an improvement in our lives
Wayne:  they're neither good nor bad.... just discovers
Wayne:  what they do to us is good or bad
Wayne:  what do you think, john james?
John James:  I think that pure science is okay, since the beneifits are, at least for a little while, limited to knowledge
Wayne:  anything that makes money is bad?
Babs:  its funny, sometimes i think that science, which everyone sees as only good, will end up being our demise
Babs:  take nuclear bombs, for instance
Wayne:  you think that we can know too much?
Wayne:  that's not science
Wayne:  that's war
Wayne:  w/o science, we'd still be kiling eachother
John James:  Nuclear bombs are technology, knowlgede of the atom is scince, which is in itself  harmless
Wayne:  jj's point makes sense
John James:  How does scinece keep us from killing each other?
Babs:  before we could kill a few people in wars with our primative weapons.  But as science advanced, so too did our capacity to kill more.  Now we can wipe out almost the entire human race with a push of a button
Wayne:  this fact could make war obsolete
Wayne:  who would want to destroy the entire planet?
Babs:  so, in essence, knowledge leads to death
Wayne:  it's not in anybody's best interest
Wayne:  ignorance leads to death, to
Wayne:  everything leads to death
Babs:  not mass death, not extinction
Wayne:  psychology is science...
Wayne:  once we figure out the way we work...
Wayne:  we'd understand eachother
Wayne:  right?
Babs:  our knowlege allows us to more fully express our emotions.  Anger and greed, both emotions, can be expressed more fully through nuclear war because of technology
Babs:  where is john james
John James:  But think about advirtisement, they use the knowlegde  of the human mind to expliot the public
Wayne:  this much is true...
Wayne:  there's good and bad uses
Wayne:  but knowledge in and of itself is good'
John James:  agreed
Wayne:  and i bet medical technology has saved far more lives than have been killed in war by technology
Babs:  in terms of war, though, the bad will always outway the good.  First a deadly device is invented (nuclear bombs)
Babs:  then technology must scramble to make a protection for this device - we have not done that yet
John James:  Are we under obligation to use knowlege to better our lives, seeing as how good uses often lead into bad ones?
Babs:  no
Babs:  i have a lame name
Wayne:  what does it mean to better our lives, anyway?
Babs:  very subjective
Wayne:  true
John James:  Like finding the cure for cancer, or isolating disese causing genes
Wayne:  does it just mean, less pain, more pleasure?
John James:  both I guess
Wayne:  because in that case.... science could lead to devices (or drugs) that just induce some sort of euphoric state
Wayne:  and don't lead to any progress at all
Wayne:  just happy fun times
Wayne:  or maybe that's progess, eh?
Babs:  what is so pleasurable about dying of old age, rotting away, a healthy body but a brain dead mind
John James:  But I pleasure often is gained at the expense of others (ignore the I)
Wayne:  this would be pleasure, all the time, no thoughts for others
John James:  And who gets to define what is pleasurable?
Babs:  how about the weather we're havin?
Babs:  bueller?
Wayne:  pleasurable would be whatever makes you feel totally totally happy
Wayne:  and science would give it to you
Wayne:  and you wouldn't want to work or do anything else
Wayne:  or be with family
Babs:  it is so relative though
John James:  So there is an ultimate expression of pleasure that transends specific types(ie body mind)
Babs:  for so many people here it would take a new car or a summer trip to make them happy
John James:  ?
Wayne:  no i'm not talking happiness
Wayne:  i'm talking total mental bliss
Wayne:  like a high
Wayne:  all the time
Babs:  go down to mexico and kids are overjoyed if they have a bottle cap to play with
Wayne:  would that be good
Wayne:  ?
Babs:  you think technology increases happiness
John James:  Are you getting at a chemical induced high, or just a general state of being?
Babs:  i saw a survey that the homish rate their lives twice as happy as wealthy people
Wayne:  when my computer was broken for a few weeks this year, i got so much more done
Wayne:  i was probably happier
John James:  Because it's less complicated, or what?
Babs:  i think that technology decreases happiness
Babs:  yes
Wayne:  who's happier now talking on these computers than if we were really talking?
Babs:  people are happy about the tech. for a time, then they get adjusted and need more
Wayne:  it's impressive, but not necessarily good
Babs:  i'm not happy because my name is babs
Wayne:  i wouldn't be either, babs
Babs:  bu bye
Wayne:  okay i love you guys and i'm going to miss you
John James:  ba
Wayne:  don't forget to write
Wayne:  bye
Wayne:  bye
Wayne:  bye