Scientific innovation is always a positive thing and should be encouraged. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons to support your answer.

Innovation in terms of science has always had advantages and people should incorporate that. I personally do not agree and would not advocate

this

notion for several reasons. To deal

this

with, the misappropriation of innovative sciences is likely to destroy the delicate environment.

For example

, nowadays, people have easy access to explosives materials.

Instead

of using nets, fishermen tend to use bombs to catch the fish.

Moreover

, fishermen do not care whether the bombs are good or not.

As a result

, the baby fish die and the ecosystem is destroyed. If fishermen continue

this

method, they might be in a situation where there are no more fish in the future.

This

situation would put them in difficulties in terms of earning money.

Then

, trapped them in poverty and the problem got worse and worse.

On the other hand

, the existence of scientific innovation would make the community lazy.

For instance

, the community in the past used their fingers or even sticks to do some tasks.

Thus

, they had good critical thinking and problem-solving. They calculate the tasks manually, but now we do have computers and we probably can do all tasks faster than manually.

As a result

, they lose their capability and become lazy. If we had not used our brains in calculating, it would be getting worse. To sum up, as the relevant reasons above show the disadvantages, we consider it to not encourage scientific innovation in society’s life since the improvement can cause a negative impact on both the environment and humans.