In this blog post, I will examine how the advancement of science and technology has enriched human life, as well as the ethical and economic issues that have arisen in the process, and reflect on the direction science and technology should take in the future.
Is science and technology value-neutral?
Science and technology are indispensable elements in the development of human civilization. As such, they have become a crucial pillar supporting modern society. Advances in transportation have effectively connected South Korea into a single-day travel zone, and the widespread adoption of computers and smartphones has fundamentally transformed our way of life. People can now travel quickly to wherever they wish and communicate with others anytime, anywhere. Given that the goal of science and technology is to provide ways to fulfill human desires and needs, these changes can be seen as a very natural outcome.
However, science and technology also have clear drawbacks. As science and technology have advanced, environmental pollution and climate change have become increasingly serious problems, and the development of digital technology has created new social conflicts. On the internet, personal insults and hate speech are spreading under the cover of anonymity, and misinformation and cybercrime are also emerging as major social problems. Despite these drawbacks, the reason humanity continues to pursue scientific and technological progress is ultimately because the benefits have so far outweighed the drawbacks. However, while the benefits provided by science and technology remain significant today, their negative effects are also becoming increasingly apparent. In particular, as the economic gap widens between groups that possess cutting-edge technology and those that do not, the original purpose of science and technology—to improve everyone’s lives—is gradually becoming obscured. Technology developed to make everyone happy can, in fact, become a source of unhappiness for certain groups. Therefore, I would like to examine whether the advancement of science and technology can continue to be a positive force for humanity in the future.
First, it is difficult to assert that science and technology have developed with the sole goal of improving the quality of life for humanity. The German sociologist Max Weber advocated for value neutrality in the methodology of the social sciences. This position holds that personal emotions or value judgments should not interfere with social science research. Applying this to science and technology, it can be interpreted that, since they are studied based on facts and evidence, they are independent of social, cultural, and moral values. Consequently, the view is that scientists need only focus on the pursuit of truth, and how the results of their research are utilized is not the researcher’s responsibility. It is argued that the social and ethical issues arising from the advancement of science and technology ultimately depend on how humans use them, and therefore, resolving these issues is the role of politics, institutions, and the humanities. This is what is generally referred to as the value neutrality of science and technology.
During the Middle Ages, science faced significant obstacles to its development due to religious constraints. However, once science was recognized as an independent academic discipline and the concept of value neutrality was accepted, it began to develop explosively. The atmosphere that prioritized the pursuit of truth itself over social responsibility for research results became a key factor driving the rapid advancement of science and technology.
But can we truly say that the decisions made today by those who utilize science and technology reflect the consensus of all humanity? If those in decision-making positions do not represent all of humanity, we need to reconsider whether scientists can be completely free from responsibility for their research findings, even though there is a possibility that their choices could lead humanity in a dangerous direction. From this perspective, when humanity is not sufficiently prepared to socially accept new technologies, the unconditional advancement of science and technology may actually lead to even greater adverse effects.
As the capitalist system has persisted over the long term, economic polarization has deepened. In a society driven by capital, individuals or corporations possessing vast amounts of capital come to dominate key decision-making. If a situation arises where the vast majority of people become unhappy while only a tiny minority of the privileged class reaps the benefits, what choices will they make? Of course, we cannot assume that all members of the privileged class pursue only their own interests. However, we cannot guarantee that irreversible, wrong choices will never occur. In this regard, I believe scientists must bear a certain sense of responsibility for the impact and consequences their research will have on society.
Has science and technology become a means of preserving wealth?
Science and technology have dramatically improved productivity and made the benefits of civilization available to more people. Since then, science and technology have continued to exert a tremendous influence on human society as a whole. Today, we use almost all daily necessities that are products of industry and technology. To that extent, science and technology have provided countless benefits to humanity and have become indispensable in modern society.
However, on the other hand, it has been pointed out that science and technology are further exacerbating the structural problems of capitalism and creating new inequalities in industrial society. Currently, most countries operate on the basis of a capitalist economic system. The core of capitalism is to maximize economic efficiency and welfare through free competition. However, a fundamental limitation of capitalism is that, once economic disparities arise, it is difficult to resolve them on its own without appropriate institutional mechanisms.
Let’s consider this in relation to science and technology. From a corporate perspective, securing outstanding technological capabilities translates to a massive competitive advantage. Maintaining this technological edge requires continuous research and development, which in turn demands core technologies and substantial capital. Reinvesting the profits generated by technological capabilities back into research and development creates a virtuous cycle in which capital and technology reinforce each other. As a result, barriers to entry in high-tech industries become extremely high.
A prime example is the semiconductor industry. Currently, the global semiconductor market is dominated by a handful of large companies competing on the basis of massive R&D investments and production capacity, and new entrants require enormous capital and technological capabilities to break into the market. The barriers to entry are so high that building a state-of-the-art semiconductor factory requires investments in the tens of trillions of won. In this industrial structure, companies with sufficient capital can continuously venture into new technological fields, while those without such resources are forced to engage in fierce competition in sectors with relatively lower barriers to entry. Consequently, science and technology serve not only as a means of expanding economic wealth but also as a powerful tool for preserving existing wealth.
Is science and technology making humanity happier?
The advancement of science and technology itself has long offered various ways to satisfy human desires and needs. However, within the limitations of the socio-economic systems humanity has created, the way science and technology are utilized is gradually changing. While science and technology have long brought prosperity and convenience to humanity, they are now acting as a factor that exacerbates new inequalities as they become intertwined with capital. The essence of science and technology itself has not changed. However, as the benefits provided by science and technology become concentrated among specific groups, the original purpose—technology for the happiness of all—is gradually being undermined.
Let’s take the semiconductor industry as an example. Thanks to technological advancements, the performance of memory semiconductors has improved dramatically, and prices have also fallen significantly compared to the past. Consumers can now access superior products at lower prices, which is clearly a positive outcome of scientific and technological progress. However, regardless of these technological advancements, economic inequality remains a significant social problem worldwide. While some groups accumulate immense wealth through the growth of high-tech industries and rising asset values, there are also many people struggling with the cost of living and income disparities. In other words, this demonstrates that technological progress does not necessarily lead to an improvement in everyone’s quality of life.
Undoubtedly, science and technology have made immense contributions to the development of human civilization thus far. Advances in medical technology have significantly extended average human life expectancy; information and communication technology has connected the entire world in real time; and artificial intelligence and automation technologies are creating new industries and jobs. At the same time, however, we need to reconsider whether the benefits of science and technology are being distributed equally among all members of society. The problem lies not with science and technology itself, but with social structures in which these benefits are concentrated among specific groups, leaving the rest with a sense of relative deprivation.
One of the causes is that humanity’s intellectual and philosophical maturity has not kept pace with the speed of scientific and technological development. While technology advances exponentially, the social consensus and ethical standards regarding how to utilize and distribute it have not kept up at the same pace. In this context, science and technology—with their dual nature—can become a double-edged sword.
Just as a sharp knife can be a dangerous tool in the hands of a child who is not yet mentally mature, technological progress can lead to unforeseen side effects if society is not prepared to use science and technology properly.
However, this does not mean we should halt the advancement of science and technology. If science and technology continue to advance, the automation of production will expand further, and with the development of artificial intelligence and robotics, humans are likely to see a significant reduction in their labor burden compared to today. In the long term, this could lead to a society where more people can enjoy a dignified life. It is not desirable to give up on this possibility or to intentionally slow down progress.
However, we must not turn a blind eye to the social costs and inequalities that arise in the process of realizing such a future. The development of high-tech industries brings significant changes to existing industries and the labor market, and in the process, certain segments of society may face economic hardship. As examined earlier, science and technology inherently carry the potential to structurally widen economic disparities, and under the capitalist system, these disparities are unlikely to be naturally resolved without institutional mechanisms.
Therefore, to address the adverse effects created by science and technology, I believe it is more important to establish social and institutional mechanisms that allow for a fairer distribution of benefits rather than restricting technological advancement itself. While it is necessary to respect market autonomy, if excessive inequality reaches a level that undermines the sustainability of society as a whole, the state must also make institutional efforts, within reasonable limits, to mitigate economic disparities. Ultimately, for science and technology to represent true progress for humanity, not only must technology advance, but the ethical consciousness and social institutions that underpin it must also develop alongside it.
