Composition: 800-word argumentative essay on the advantages and disadvantages of high technology.

As for "fast life", whether it is a car or an airplane phone, it is essentially to continuously improve people's living efficiency. In this pursuit of efficiency, psychological group social anxiety is caused, which means that society is becoming more and more impetuous.

2 from scientific development to globalization, from globalization to globalization, such as cultural loss, cultural aggression under economic strength and so on.

From globalization to the change of ideas, it is best to give some examples, such as the lost generation in the United States.

Consume a lot of limited material resources on the earth; Some modern scientific products will be harmful to human health.

I think the most important thing in this debate is not to list all kinds of disadvantages brought by science and technology to mankind, because if your eyes are only fixed on the disadvantages, then the other party is likely to seize this point and attack you: your opponent, you always list all kinds of disadvantages of science and technology, as if the development of science and technology has only brought disasters to mankind, so why are we still emphasizing that science and technology is the primary productive force now? Why should mankind continue to develop science and technology?

The key to answering this question lies in your understanding of the debate. The essence of this understanding lies in: Why should we find out the disadvantages brought by technology? This is the key to your point of view. Why? I remember a saying: technology is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can crush ignorance and backwardness, on the other hand, it may bring endless disasters to mankind. At this time, we emphasize the pain and disaster brought by science and technology to mankind precisely for the purpose of maximizing the positive role of this double-edged sword and benefiting mankind, not the other way around. The so-called good medicine is good for the disease, because thinking about science and technology rationally and comprehensively can keep science and technology under the control of human beings all the time and will not harm human beings in turn.

After the viewpoint is established, there are naturally some necessary examples. In fact, the example is very good: the development of atomic physics theory has enabled mankind to master nuclear energy technology, but it has also brought about the nuclear disasters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and brought about a "terrible peace" for mankind for 50 years. For the first time, human beings have the ability of self-destruction. In addition, there are endless nuclear accidents, among which Chernobyl in the Soviet Union is the most famous (please search online for specific data). The development of chemistry has given us unprecedented ability to transform nature, but our gunpowder and explosives have also hurt tens of millions of human compatriots. Our chemical synthesis technology has created things that do not exist in nature, but now we are also troubled by white garbage and poisoned by chemical pollution. Why are so many children suffering from leukemia in our country now? Very important factors are chemical adhesives used in home decoration and ozone-destroying freon. The development of petroleum exploration technology has greatly accelerated the pace of human progress. We have been able to fly faster than the speed of sound, but it has also brought too many wars and too much interference, and the earth began to catch a cold and have a fever. The development of biotechnology has given us the power to create life monopolized by God before, but it has also brought about ethical disorder. In short, scientific progress is always accompanied by corresponding drawbacks and dangers. Today, we must face up to these negative effects, otherwise we humans may eventually be destroyed in our own hands.

The above answer is my answer to "the disadvantages brought by technology". These two debates are basically the same. I don't know whether your debate is accurate or not. If so, then the key point of this debate is how to treat the disadvantages of science and technology. If there are disadvantages, we will not develop, or in order to avoid the disadvantages brought by scientific development, we would rather return to the primitive society. This is of course incorrect, so we discover and expose the disadvantages of science and technology in order to play the role of a rational critic. For example, it was found that the harm of freon to the ozone layer did not stop people from using refrigerators, but used other refrigerants. After discovering that carbon dioxide can produce greenhouse effect, human beings did not stop using related fuels, but signed the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The same examples are numerous, so your point of view is rational criticism. It is precisely because of rational criticism that human beings have survived from self-destruction again and again. This is your argument. The development of human beings always needs some people to play the role of critics, and the core of freedom of speech is to ensure the moral freedom of those critics and the right of human beings to obtain different opinions.