We must not reject it simply on the grounds that some people have used it for nefarious means, any more than we should reject sub-atomic physics for its role in the production of nuclear weaponry. The fact that we do not like the implications of a particular theory does not affect its truth.
damn i like this sentence so much.
On a separate note,
All sciences sparked from curiosity, which led to discovery. We're now in development and invention (something that doesn't just find out why things are happening, but instead, make new things happen out of the 'norm').
What is norm anyway, who decides what's norm and what's out of the norm?
How much science is beneficial, and how much science would be immoral? who set the rules? and why should they set the rules?
i wish i could see how the world would become in a millennium.
