The most controversial technology that I know about is nuclear technology due to its potential threat known to the world, despite its advantages. I think this technology should continue to exist as long as its use remains limited to power generation and medical science but not for weapons.
The idea of producing weapons of mass destruction that requires nuclear technology will possibly have its grave consequence. These nuclear weapons can cause massive devastation and kill millions of people within a few minutes during any tension escalation between rivals. Since the world has not forgotten the catastrophe in World War II, no one would want to see another global war such as World War III. Hence, I do not support this use which may jeopardise millions of lives.
However, the contribution of this technology to the power sector will be useful. It can help produce clean energy that may also be cost-effective, compared to conventional sources like oil, gas and coal. These sources, according to almost every environmentalist, are causing global warming, besides being expensive. On the other hand, nuclear energy can effectively deal with these problems, especially in under-developed countries like Pakistan, facing energy crises and having a limited budget. Thus, avoiding this technology may make the countries restrain from reaping this advantage.
Similarly, the use of this technology seems to have brought a revolution in medical science. Now, finding out about any fatal disease and its cure have become somewhat reliable and accurate. Cancer, for instance, can now be easily diagnosed at its initial stage and treated. Therefore here, this technology should remain in use.
To conclude, nuclear technology needs to exist when serving and saving human beings and not destroying them. Nevertheless, any misuse of it will do more harm than good.
The most controversial
technology
that I know about is nuclear
technology
due to its potential threat known to the
world
, despite its advantages. I
think
this
technology
should continue to exist as long as its
use
remains limited to power generation and medical science
but
not for weapons.
The
idea
of producing weapons of mass destruction that requires nuclear
technology
will
possibly
have its grave consequence. These nuclear weapons can cause massive devastation and kill millions of
people
within a few minutes during any tension escalation between rivals. Since the
world
has not forgotten the catastrophe in
World
War II, no one would want to
see
another global war such as
World
War III.
Hence
, I do not support this
use
which may
jeopardise
millions of
lives
.
However
, the contribution of this
technology
to the power sector will be useful. It can
help
produce clean energy that may
also
be cost
-effective, compared to conventional sources like oil, gas and coal. These sources, according to almost every environmentalist, are causing global warming,
besides
being expensive.
On the other hand
, nuclear energy can
effectively
deal with these problems,
especially
in under-
developed countries
like Pakistan, facing energy crises and having a limited budget.
Thus
, avoiding this
technology
may
make
the countries restrain from reaping this advantage.
Similarly
, the
use
of this
technology
seems to have brought a revolution in medical science.
Now
, finding out about any fatal disease and its cure have become somewhat reliable and accurate. Cancer,
for instance
, can
now
be
easily
diagnosed at its initial stage and treated.
Therefore
here, this
technology
should remain in
use
.
To conclude
, nuclear
technology
needs to exist when serving and saving human beings and not destroying them.
Nevertheless
, any misuse of it will do more harm than
good
.