Savior or destroyer?

In this week's awkward seminar on "A Measure of Constraint", we discussed how human inventions cause harm to ourselves even though it was branded as a cure or had many uses that benefit humans. Things that appear as beautiful or helpful like Cesium-137 all ended in death and new diseases. I think that this argument made by the author can be applied to many things we use in today's world.

For example, in the medical field, some doctors or health professionals advertise the use of antibiotics and their benefits. This advertisement led to the overuse of antibiotics without seeking professional medical help. I have seen people mindlessly use antibiotics for acne or diarrhea even though they would worsen the conditions instead of improving it. Another bad result caused by the overuse of antibiotics is the mutation of bacterias. This result is feared among the medical field because a bacteria would eventually evolve to a point where no antibiotic can kill it or slow its growth, and when that happens, the entire human race is in danger. By overusing antibiotics, it allows bacteria to gain more opportunities to learn the chemical structure of the antibiotic and mutate in order to defend against it. So this product that many health professionals are advertising is actually leading to our destruction? Not necessarily, while the overuse of antibiotics can cause these problems, the normal use of it is definitely beneficial. To "normally" use antibiotics, a person should read the daily recommended dosage and use exactly that and ask for help from a health professional so he or she can use the correct one. 

The argument made in "A Measure of Constraint" is partly correct and partly wrong. I think it needs to be rephrased into: Human inventions could cause harm if it is overused; however, it is more important to educate the public to use it correctly which will prevent the damage. 

**Anti-vax moms, this is not for u my friend.