the most important aim of science should be to improve people's lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

In recent decades, the advancement in scientific discoveries has proven to be a significant factor in the rise of the standard of living.

However

, I disagree with the view that solely uplifting the standard of living is the main purpose of

science

for two main reasons.

Firstly

, the absence of a greater direction in

science

Replace the word

scientific

show examples

discoveries would potentially neglect other important elements,

such

as environments, which are as important as the standard of living, if not more.

Although

it could be argued that there is still plenty of room for scientific innovations to exponentially increase people’s lives,

this

paradigm may result in exploitative behaviours and disastrous outcomes. To illustrate, despite the fact that the Industrial Revolution has significantly improved productivity, it

also

led to an ever-increasing trend in the number of emissions and greenhouse gases to the point of no return. Not only has it caused climate change, but it can

also

result in biodiversity loss and destruction of the ecosystem, by over-exploiting natural resources, e.g. oil and gas extraction, just for the sake of improvement in the standard of living. It is,

therefore

, clear how

this

objective of putting the standard of living as the centre of

science

would eventually lead to more unfavourable and unsustainable outcomes.

Secondly

, focusing on the standard of living may limit the vast opportunities that

science

can bring into practice.

Although

not all

science

is applicable to our daily lives, it enables industry players to continuously improve their existing products based on new scientific findings.

Furthermore

, the definition of standard of living itself has evolved over the years, especially after being criticised for overlooking the sustainable development aspects and putting too much focus on GDP growth. Take an indicator

such

as labour productivity

for example

, which may show a drastic rise over the

last

decade, signalling a positive trend in the standard of living

while

in fact, the average real wage experiencing a stagnating path. As the measurement of the standard of living itself poses

such

flaws, many experts suggest the so-called degrowth paradigm, which, in turn, can shift the priorities to other important factors

such

as environmental, social, and governance aspects. In conclusion, prioritising the standard of living is irrelevant to the main purpose of

science

due to

the limitation of elements involved and flaws in the standard of living by definition. I,

therefore

, remain firmly convinced that increasing the standard of living should not be the main purpose of

science

.