Science is moving much faster than we might think. Scientists tell us that a graph of the development of science in time will be an exponential function over time. This means it is very difficult to anticipate what our future technologies will eventually become, given the current status of science and technology. In 1965, a painter Jung-Moon Lee drew a cartoon about the lifestyle of people in 35 years. He showed solar energy, an electronic car, a smart phone, a robot cleaner, a moving walkway, etc. All he drew then has become reality, except for a field trip to the moon. Fifty years ago, it was easy to predict future technologies.
  Sometimes, we are very insensitive to the development of science, even when we use the newest smart phones in our everyday life, a device that was not available even 20 years ago. We just experience scientific changes, whenever a new smart phone is launched in the market. In addition, the older people who use smart phones only for making calls are more insensitive to scientific changes.
  However, on March 9, 2016, people were shocked by the appearance of Alphago. In the media, reporters wrote numerous articles about machine’s victory or human’s failure. Of course, the defeat of Baduk player Lee Se-Dol caused fear, after the initial shock. We have already learned that the purpose of science is to make human life comfortable and relaxed. We have to ponder on the question what science is like for us in the world.
  Can science really save the world? If yes, how to save the world? In 2016, one of top issues in South Korea is Oxy’s toxic humidifier sterilizers. Many people who didn't know about their danger died. From an epidemiologic survey, PHMG (polyhexamethylene guanidine) is one of the deadly chemical components. From this case, we realize that science can also harm people, rather than help them. It cannot be denied that modern communities definitely need powerful science. We cannot live like Amish people that are known for simple living, plain clothes, and reluctance to adopt conveniences of modern technology. However, we may need to save science, rather than expect to be saved by it.  Now we have to consider the issue of morality of science and assign proportional punishment for immoral science. If God prepares a homework for the morality of science, let science not do it; we should do it for ourselves.