It is a common belief that the development of science has positive aspect in terms of lifespan. However, there is a more persuasive argument that the prolonged life with advanced science makes negative influence to the nature.

REVISED: While many believe that scientific development has improved human lifespan, a more compelling argument is that a longer life expectancy, brought about by advanced science, negatively affects the environment.

 This is because the environment will be deteriorated with the increase of human beings.

>>>CORRECT~!^^

 On the one hand, science makes good things for people to live up to 100 or even 200 years. It can make people to live healthier than before. Research has shown that the mortality of patients who was diagnosed with colon cancer has decreased with progress of science. The mortality was over 50 percents in 1990s while it was 20 percents in 2000s and only 10 percents in 2010s. Compared to these study results, the big difference that could be a reason why the rates were decreased was development of medical science such as chemotherapy medications, surgeries, and radiation therapies. In conclusion, progressional science has made valuable influence on humans’ lives.

REVISED: On the one hand, science brings significant benefits by helping people live longer and healthier lives. For example, research has shown that mortality rates for colon cancer patients have dramatically decreased due to advancements in medical treatments. In the 1990s, the mortality rate was over 50%, whereas it dropped to 20% in the 2000s and just 10% in the 2010s. This progress is largely due to improvements in chemotherapy, surgical techniques, and radiation therapy. Thus, scientific progress has clearly enhanced human longevity and quality of life.

Nevertheless, I support the idea that increased lifespan with science has bad things. Nature is limited so if there are more people in the earth, resources from nature will be disappeared soon. For instance, in Korea, there are fewer greenery spaces with trees and flowers in cities than rural places. It was caused by the gap of population. In case of city, it is too crowded with people, so construction of many buildings for living or working affected nature on negative effect. Therefore, the rise of population with science will not good at protection of environment.

REVISED: Nevertheless, extending human lifespans through science may have serious negative consequences for the environment. Earth's natural resources are finite, and a growing population places increasing pressure on these limited resources. For instance, in South Korea, urban areas are becoming more crowded, resulting in the loss of green spaces due to excessive construction. As more people live longer, the demand for housing, food, and energy also grows, contributing to environmental degradation. Therefore, while science may extend life, it can also exacerbate ecological challenges.

To sum up, while it is apparent that the science is one of the best options to let people live longer, it is undeniable that it is a bad news to our nature.

>>>CORRECT~!^^