In this blog post, I’d like to examine the positive and negative impacts of scientific and technological development on human life and reflect on what constitutes an appropriate level of such development.
The pace and achievements of modern scientific and technological development are truly astonishing. A wide variety of technologies have emerged that make our lives more convenient, expand our horizons, and broaden our range of choices. Now, instead of unfolding a map to find a desired location, we can use GPS-based location services to check our destination on a small screen, and thanks to advances in transportation, we can reach our destinations faster and in less time. Furthermore, even when making minor decisions, we exchange opinions with others through social media. In this way, the advancement of science and technology has undoubtedly made modern life faster and more convenient. But does the advancement of science and technology always bring only positive outcomes to our lives? I believe the answer is no. Just as most social phenomena do not always follow a linear cause-and-effect relationship, the advancement of science and technology does not always have a purely positive effect on improving our quality of life. If so, what level of science and technology do we actually need? In this article, I would like to explore my views on the “necessary level” of science and technology.
Does a “necessary level” of science and technology even exist? The prevailing view is that technological advancement makes our lives more efficient. But what criteria can we use to define “efficiency”? Could it be that our lives—already dominated by technology—have themselves become the very standard by which we judge efficiency? There are certainly areas of our lives where modern technology is not strictly necessary. If the advancement of science and technology encroaches upon such areas of life, then there must be an appropriate level and limits to technological progress. In fact, while our lives benefit from various technologies, there are also fields where that appropriate level of necessity becomes apparent. Take the automotive industry, for example. Since their invention, automobiles have become humanity’s primary means of transportation, and subsequent technological advancements have led to the creation of more powerful, safer, and more efficient vehicles. While electric vehicles and autonomous driving technology have been advancing rapidly in recent years, innovations that fundamentally transform existing road and transportation systems are occurring gradually amid various social and technical constraints. In other words, even when new technologies emerge, we must consider both the level of need within society and the feasibility of their application. In the future, there will likely be an increasing number of cases across many technological fields—similar to the automotive industry—where the appropriate level of application becomes more important than the direction of technological development.
To determine whether there truly is a necessary level of science and technology, a clear criterion is needed: specifically, whether further technological development actually contributes to improving the quality of life for humanity. Examples of technological advancements failing to improve quality of life can be found in various fields. Technological progress can also raise ethical issues, and indeed, such problems continue to manifest in various forms even today. Furthermore, science and technology have the potential to encroach upon areas of human life that could be sustained without technological intervention.
A prime example of such ethical issues is the advancement of life sciences and biotechnology. Biotechnology has contributed significantly to the treatment and prevention of numerous diseases. From medications for minor injuries to treatments for incurable diseases, various gene-based therapies, and life-prolonging measures for critically ill patients, humanity has become capable of overcoming far more diseases than in the past. However, as biotechnology continues to advance, active social and ethical debates regarding the appropriate limits of such technology are also taking place. Life has intrinsic value that deserves respect, and humans, as living beings, must also be respected. Biotechnology research conducted for the benefit of humans sometimes conflicts with the right to life of other living beings, and while research outcomes benefit humans, they can also give rise to new ethical issues. For example, while modern medical technology has greatly improved our ability to prolong life, social debates continue regarding the scope of life-sustaining treatment, patients’ right to self-determination, and the right to a dignified death. These issues share similarities with past debates on euthanasia for patients in a vegetative state, and today, the discussion has expanded to include decisions on life-sustaining treatment and bioethics in general. How to view and reconcile the ethical issues arising from advances in science and technology remains an ongoing challenge.
Advances in information technology have greatly increased the potential for information utilization, but at the same time, they also have aspects that infringe upon human life. Information technology is evolving in a direction that allows users to access even more information.
Consequently, information providers are collecting more data, and users can now easily access a far greater volume of information than ever before. As a result, information related to users is also being collected and utilized through various channels. Advances in information technology have made it more difficult to protect personal information, and the scope of information disclosure is gradually expanding. Not only in South Korea but also around the world, large-scale personal data breaches are occurring repeatedly, and cyberattacks targeting corporations and public institutions are steadily increasing. Unless the level of information security improves in tandem with the expanding use of information, personal data breaches and security threats are bound to continue occurring. Human society has evolved from an agricultural society to an industrial society, and from an industrial society to an information society. Today, it is rapidly transforming into a digital society characterized by the spread of artificial intelligence and hyper-connected technologies. As we live in this era, we need to reconsider the extent to which science and technology should permeate human life.
While advances in science and technology can enrich human life, they can also dehumanize it. In a capitalist society, people earn a living by working, travel, communicate, and enjoy leisure time. As technology advances, we have developed a desire to move faster. With growing expectations of faster travel, many people find themselves unable to tolerate slowness, feel impatient, and lose the leisure and ease of life. Furthermore, people have become increasingly reliant on communication technology, and non-face-to-face communication via social media and messaging apps has become the norm. It is precisely this trend that has led me to reflect on the appropriate level of technological advancement. Communication between people is gradually losing the human touch and the virtues of traditional conversation. A prime example is the observation—consistently raised—that while the widespread adoption of smartphones has made it possible to stay in touch anytime and anywhere, the time spent meeting in person and conversing has actually decreased. Furthermore, as technology advances, people are expected to handle more work than ever before, and competition is intensifying as individual abilities are valued more highly. While this could be seen as a natural phenomenon in a free-market society, it is also true that technological progress accelerates this competition. Consequently, even when enjoying their leisure time, people often feel a need for reward and exhibit more consumption-oriented tendencies than in the past. The more satisfaction and pleasure consumers derive, the more likely it is that, behind the scenes, someone else must shoulder a greater burden of labor. In summary, it is difficult to shake the impression that modern life is drifting toward a pattern where people work and consume beyond what is necessary in pursuit of development that exceeds actual needs. Of course, this perspective may seem somewhat exaggerated or overly negative, and one might argue that the very standards of what it means to be human remain rooted in outdated values. Nevertheless, I believe there are still quite a few people today who share the author’s concerns.
Modern society maintains a market economy system based on free competition. Consequently, technological advancement is driven not by the government, as in the past, but by companies that leverage technological capabilities as a competitive advantage. Companies develop new technologies to launch products and services, thereby generating profits. Technological advancement has become a free economic activity for businesses, and most people, as consumers and users of products and services incorporating these technologies, enjoy the resulting convenience. However, in this process, society is finding it increasingly difficult to control the direction of scientific and technological development on its own. To summarize, I am not arguing that the government should uniformly regulate scientific and technological development or set clear limits on it. However, I believe we must recognize that science and technology, beyond contributing to human progress and the expansion of knowledge, also raise various ethical issues and carry the potential to erode our humanity. Since we ourselves are the ones who benefit from science and technology, social reflection and discussion regarding how far science and technology should advance and in what direction they should be utilized will continue to be necessary in the future.
