Technology, does it help or harm humanity?

[Joey D]

I'm on this archaeological dig as part of a class right now and we are excavating a 19th century farm, we haven't found much in the way of artifacts but we have obtained a large amount of old pictures, letters, and other information that one of the surviving relatives kept in an attic for all of these years. There are pictures of their first Model T the bought for $750, pounds of beef they bought for 40 cents, and so on (if I can remember my camera I take some pictures of the pictures).

But anyway to my point, people back in the 1800's living in Michigan probably thought the UK was a long ways away. Now I can jump on a plane and get there after an 8 hour flight. There were no phones back then, now I can just pull my cell phone out and call anyone else on the planet with a phone number in a matter of seconds. The cars people had were very primitive and cost virtually nothing in today's standards, now about the cheapest car you can buy is $10,000 and still comes with airbags. And so on...you get the point.

So was life better back then because some many things were technology free or is life now better because we have all these "time saving" devices and services?

Now another thing I got to thinking about while going through all of this stuff...I can't explain to you how mundane a lot of my work on this project is...but I began to think is all of this technology, globalization, interconnection, and what not, is it slowly destroying culture? I mean the world is becoming a huge melting pot of ideas, whether that is a good thing or not is up for discussion.

So what are your ideas? Is technology making our lives harder? Is a interconnected global destroying individual cultures? Am I making an sense at all?

 

[Gen.]

The old culture is making way for the new culture.

 

[Joey D]

Well I guess my point was that eventually there will by just one culture throughout the world and it will destroy individual culture. I personally don't like this idea, but that comes with the whole anthropology thing.

 

[Sage]

Technology is always intrinsically good. You can’t convince me otherwise.

 

[Joey D]

I honestly do not think technology is always a good thing, everything has it's positive sides and it's negative sides. Nuclear energy produces a large amount of energy, but has the risk of melting down and creating a highly radioactive site. Cell phones make us able to be connected at all times, but it increases your chance of killing yourself while using it behind the wheel.

 

[Sage]

That’s why I made sure to say intrinsically good. People may make stupid decisions when using technology, but technology in and of itself is always always always good. And in fact, maybe I didn’t even need that qualifier, because I’d argue that empirically, the good of technology has always outweighed stupid uses of it (e.g., the good that nuclear chemistry has brought to the world far outweighs any problems it has caused).

 

[Joey D]

But you really can't have technology without human interaction...at least until really good AI comes into existence.

 

[Omnis]

Cell phones make us able to be connected at all times, but it increases your chance of killing yourself while using it behind the wheel.

See, but, that's not the function of the cell phone. It does its job by allowing you to call people from anywhere.

As Sage said, technology is always good.

 

[Casio]

As Sage said, technology is always good.

Although it tends to make most of the world slack and fat now.

 

[Sage]

I think the fact that we have too much food and convenience is the greatest thing in the world – for 99% of man’s time on Earth, we’ve been slaves to food, always facing possible starvation (and in fact, much of the world still faces that problem). Only in the past century have we been able to turn around that problem, and I think that when our problem is having too much food, we’re doing really well.

 

[Casio]

I agree with you totally on that.

But I just don't think it's a particular good thing that now no ones needs to leave the house or have any human interaction at all. I can order my groceries, do my banking, get some DVDs, pay bills, buy goods, etc. No one speaks to people anymore.

And since some of these, especially banking, have been taken over electronically, then it's costing the jobs of people. Banks are terrible now, sure you've got the convenience of being able to do stuff online, but if you ever want to ring the bank up you're talking to a machine for 30 minutes pressing numbers.

 

[Philly]

I going to have to say that technology isn't really especially all that great. True, it is made to improve people's lives; why else would it exist? But still, technology is bringing out a new culture. I sit here posting to you guys halfway across the globe. I am not actually interacting with you. I was at home today texting people in school. I was not actually interacting with them. These methods are ways to pass the time, not ways to entertain.

In the old times, there was a community. Everybody knew everybody. They all had a good time. That community functioned fine, and they had ways to get around the issues we still face today. Did they need computers? No, and a letter would be far more special than an email. Phones? Everybody was close enough to be able to see them anytime. Fancy transportation? No, they did not really need to go anywhere, and when they did it was really cherished. People probably had about the same amount of fun as we do now (and a lot of it was safer), and the special things we do would be even more special for them. (talk to somebody older who just took their first plane trip, or is about to go on one).

As for globablization, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. Every culture would be blended into one. A Western, Christian system cannot be emplaced on other cultures who have other values without wreaking havoc on their standards. Culture creates history. Paris has a lot of attractive things, all because it had a strong cultural past and has preserved it. You can't get most of the stuff they have there anywhere else. Now imagine every city as a Paris clone. What pull do the great cities have any more? Europeans won't come to New York any more because they could get New York just down their street.

At least that's my take on this whole thing.

 

[Blake]

I agree with Sage, technology is a good thing. Our species is what it is because of constant development. I’d much rather be where I am now than worrying if I was going to get killed the next time our tribe needed meat.

At least that's my take on this whole thing.

You can’t destroy culture like that. If we want to live as a ‘global village’ (for want of a better term) people have to accept other peoples cultures and values, but do not have to practice or believe them. This is key.

Just because I can interact with a Muslim does not mean I have to believe what he or she does, but I accept that they have a different belief system than I do and it is not my place to try and change that.

 

[Sage]

But still, technology is bringing out a new culture. I sit here posting to you guys halfway across the globe. I am not actually interacting with you.

So you’d rather not be able to contact those people in the first place? Because that’s the only other option without technology.

In the old times, there was a community. Everybody knew everybody. They all had a good time. That community functioned fine, and they had ways to get around the issues we still face today. Did they need computers? No, and a letter would be far more special than an email. Phones? Everybody was close enough to be able to see them anytime. Fancy transportation? No, they did not really need to go anywhere, and when they did it was really cherished. People probably had about the same amount of fun as we do now (and a lot of it was safer), and the special things we do would be even more special for them. (talk to somebody older who just took their first plane trip, or is about to go on one).

Where are you getting this idea that life was so peachy “back in the old days”? My parents are old (probably as old as your grandparents), and I can say for a fact that they’re much happier living today than “back in the day”.

If life was so great without cars, then they wouldn’t have been invented. If life was so great with just snail mail, then phones wouldn’t have been invented. If phones were so perfect, then email wouldn’t have been invented. If people were so happy being confined to their communities, then airplanes would’ve never been invented.

Culture creates history. Paris has a lot of attractive things, all because it had a strong cultural past and has preserved it. You can't get most of the stuff they have there anywhere else. Now imagine every city as a Paris clone. What pull do the great cities have any more? Europeans won't come to New York any more because they could get New York just down their street.

I don’t understand how that’s a bad thing.

This is the problem with these kinds of arguments – every time I hear somebody claim that technology and globalization will destroy “culture”, they lay out why, but I’ve yet to hear a proper argument of what’s inherently wrong with adopting parts of another culture. What would be wrong with Thailand becoming westernized? They need it – I’ve been there many times, and the non-modernized portions of Thailand are filthy and poor and disgusting, and life isn’t so peachy just because they know their neighbors. What would be wrong with other cities looking like New York City?

This might seem like heresy, but I would be perfectly okay with a homogenous world culture, because then we’d concentrate on individuals more than collectives.

 

[Stevisiov]

philly cheese
I going to have to say that technology isn't really especially all that great. True, it is made to improve people's lives; why else would it exist? But still, technology is bringing out a new culture. I sit here posting to you guys halfway across the globe. I am not actually interacting with you. I was at home today texting people in school. I was not actually interacting with them. These methods are ways to pass the time, not ways to entertain.

In the old times, there was a community. Everybody knew everybody. They all had a good time. That community functioned fine, and they had ways to get around the issues we still face today. Did they need computers? No, and a letter would be far more special than an email. Phones? Everybody was close enough to be able to see them anytime. Fancy transportation? No, they did not really need to go anywhere, and when they did it was really cherished. People probably had about the same amount of fun as we do now (and a lot of it was safer), and the special things we do would be even more special for them. (talk to somebody older who just took their first plane trip, or is about to go on one).

As for globablization, that is a problem that needs to be fixed. Every culture would be blended into one. A Western, Christian system cannot be emplaced on other cultures who have other values without wreaking havoc on their standards. Culture creates history. Paris has a lot of attractive things, all because it had a strong cultural past and has preserved it. You can't get most of the stuff they have there anywhere else. Now imagine every city as a Paris clone. What pull do the great cities have any more? Europeans won't come to New York any more because they could get New York just down their street.

At least that's my take on this whole thing.

You claim that technology isn't all that great, the irony is you sit here posting on an international website, with your avatar as a BMW with a caption above saying 'wants an M3' now what your have to understand is that a hell of a lot of technology and computer chips are swarming the car, more so than many other cars today, why not go buy a car from the good old days, they have far less of this computer nonsense in them.

People always have this image of a great time, their 'golden era' I have heard old people tell me how great it was "when I where a lad", of course its not unexpected, Humans will always have a favorite part of their life. My guess is, when I am 70 I will be telling everyone how great it was when I was a kid, with mobile phones, playtation games, heck I even hear people saying that Golden eye was the best game ever, I would agree with them as well. That had to be one of the best games of its era, it was brilliant. If I as to give my brother who is 5 a choice between timesplitters 2 on the PS2, or Golden eye on the N64, He would go for timesplitters 2 without a doubt, because Golden Eye is not the better game, he won't see golden eye how I see it. He will see an old out of date game. I see one of the best games ever made, because thats how I looked at it when I used to play it, and still do because it fills me with nostalgia.

Truth is you can sit back and admire the golden days as much as you want. If you experienced it as it things really was, long ago things weren't really that great. Cholera now thats an exciting thing from the past, I am sure I missed out, remember caveman, I am sure they would have been really happy, well the truth is they probably where, but they felt they needed to make things better, so they invented things, these days we feel the need to make things better so we invent things. If there wasn't a human drive to strive for improvement why would we bother, so I ask you would you really like to be a cave man.

So like a true hypocrite I am off to by buy back my copy of GT2 (one of the best games ever) from my friend that I sold to him long ago. Heres to nostalgia.

 

[Joey D]

A blending of cultures is a bad thing because you lose part of human history when it happens. There are tribes of people that were untouched for years, but when "civilization" came to them it ruined their way of life. One example of this is the Yanomamö tribe of South America, when they were first discovered they we by modern standards very primitive, but they had a complex and very individualistic culture. However once civilization started creeping into their villages (carried by Christian missionaries) they began to lose their ways. Stuff like that I do not like, yes technology might help these people but it's making them forget who they were.

 

[Swift]

Ok first off. All technology since the telephone has made people in industrialized nations more busy. Think about it. Back in the day, you did what you could possibly do in a day within a mile or so of your home. Now, you can do things over 100 miles away, talk to many different people, send out hundreds of emails and get something to eat in literally 30 seconds. Technology as good as it is, has made people more busy and I think that has a direct link to some of the disease that plague us. Especially in America.

But on the side of is technology good. Well, of course. Look at the life expectancy just 50 to 100 years ago. Look at the fact that 2 %- 5% of the population can produce food for the rest of the world. These things were not possible without our current technology.

One day, I believe we'll get to the "star trek" level of technology. But I think it will be my grand children that see it, not me.

 

[Boundary Layer]

See, but, that's not the function of the cell phone. It does its job by allowing you to call people from anywhere.

Explain to me how John Smith's ability to speak with Wilhelm [SIZE=-1]Holzhausen with just the press of a few buttons corresponds to a direct improvement to his quality of life. To me, the connection isn't obvious.[/SIZE]



Joey D asks a tricky question, because so many technologies work both for and against humanity and how they are viewed may depend on if you're looking at short term gain or a long term comparison of benefits to costs. Most new technologies only come about to try to fix up the problems that eventually come about as a result of some previous technology.

Agriculture for instance... made it's world debut several thousands of years ago. No longer did people have to live the nomadic life of a forager or hunter - they could live in one place and have a regular supply of food, raise a greater number of children, and have more time for other pursuits (religion, science and mathematics, the arts, sex, drugs, rock'n'roll). This is great on the surface, but it only brings about a multitude of other problems (social and otherwise) that come with living in a fixed place. For starters, crime and prostitution begin appearin and bring about the need for policing. People living in one place for a long period of time can generate a lot of garbage and soils, if these are not properly disposed of a community can quickly become stricken with disease (if the prostitution didn't get them already) - so suddenly their is a greater need for plumbing and healthcare. If the population outgrows it's food supply you need either more land, or to get more production from the land. The need for more land lead to warfare with neighbouring communities (...a modern twist, replace land by oil). The need for greater production led to the development of irrigation (good), but also fertilizers and pesticides which bioaccumulate through the food chain and cause birth defects and more disease in humans and other tertiary predators.
etc, etc
Continue this chain as long as you like. I think all modern technologies are easily traced back to the widespread use of agriculture.

I'll freely admit this is a pretty pesomistic point of view, and can't be applied to all cultures everywhere, but it paints a good general picture of how we in western cultures got to where we are today.

The irony is that many African hunter-gatherer populations that still survive today have a better diet than the average person in a developed nation.


So, back to one of the questions at hand:

Is technology making our lives harder?

Yes (and I do understand the irony of an engineer saying this, so don't start), of course it's never the intent.

Technology, by it's very nature, is supposed to make life more comfortable and enjoyable for those fortunate enough to afford it...and many technologies do. +1 to cutlery and seat cushions. But with all technologies, there is always a cost to be endured and it's when the costs are poorly anticipated that we get ourselves into trouble. Now, developing new innovations simply to cope with the ever expanding list of complex problems we've created for ourselves through widespread industrialization, overpopulation, and other socioeconomic pressures and to try to maintain a certain quality of life for the forseeable future is how a large percentage of the population make their living.

 

[Omnis]

Explain to me how John Smith's ability to speak with Wilhelm [SIZE=-1]Holzhausen with just the press of a few buttons corresponds to a direct improvement to his quality of life. To me, the connection isn't obvious.[/SIZE]

Well, he doesn't have to be stuck in a phone booth, he can use his phone when the phone lines are down during hurricanes, and he doesn't have to be stranded without communication. (given he's in range for his phone to work.)

Technology doesn't automatically make everyone's lives better and easier. It just provides them with potential convenience should they choose to utilize it well. Therefore, technology can only do good, because people would never choose to utilize it if it was counterproductive to their goals.

 

[Danoff]

Explain to me how John Smith's ability to speak with Wilhelm [SIZE=-1]Holzhausen with just the press of a few buttons corresponds to a direct improvement to his quality of life. To me, the connection isn't obvious.[/SIZE]

It allows you to more easily choose who you socialize with, rather than being confinded to your local area. It improves safety by making it easier to call for help in emergency situations. It saves time in coordinating events, and helps prevent miscommunication. In short, it allows us to be more connected, better informed, safer, and helps make our time more efficient.

Most new technologies only come about to try to fix up the problems that eventually come about as a result of some previous technology.

Really? Not seeing it. Agriculture developed because there were a myriad of problems with nomadic lifestyles. Pesticides developed to improve agriculture, which was an improvement on nomadic lifestyle. But techonology does not (and I want to stress this point carefully) does not cause crime. Crime has existed since the dawn of man and always will exist. There is no cause for crime except our own genetic design. Technolgoy does not enable crime, and it does not encourage crime. In fact, the guns are a good example of an invention that helps reduce crime. Prior to guns, human beings were inherently unequal in terms of the amount of physical force they could exert on one-another. This creates an imbalance of power - which helps enable crime. Guns level that playing field, thereby discouraging crime. That's an excellent example of technology doing the opposite of what you describe.

(oh, and there's nothing wrong with prositution)

The irony is that many African hunter-gatherer populations that still survive today have a better diet than the average person in a developed nation.

Compare their lifespan to ours.

 

[Boundary Layer]

I should no better than to engage a mass-debating champ, but anyways:

Most new technologies only come about to try to fix up the problems that eventually come about as a result of some previous technology.

Really? Not seeing it. Agriculture developed because there were a myriad of problems with nomadic lifestyles. Pesticides developed to improve agriculture, which was an improvement on nomadic lifestyle. But techonology does not (and I want to stress this point carefully) does not cause crime. Crime has existed since the dawn of man and always will exist. There is no cause for crime except our own genetic design. Technolgoy does not enable crime, and it does not encourage crime.

For starters, I wasn't generalizing and saying that all technology causes crime. That's absurd. I was saying in the example of agriculture, that I see a direct link between it and theft in a culture transitioning from a nomadic lifestyle to one living in fixed settlements supported chiefly by agriculture.

You'd be pretty hard pressed find much crime in a self-sufficient domestic culture embracing generalized reciprocity (as many used to until they recieved western influence).

Theft is fueled by needs and wants exceeding what a person can easily provide for themselves. Agriculture enables a successful person to acrue a greater amount of wealth (in form of food) than others... it causes disparity. The instant you've got someone in need of food with little or nothing to give for it, someone else with an excess that they're not willing to part ways with cheaply, you've got all the ingredients you need for thievery to occur.

In fact, the guns are a good example of an invention that helps reduce crime. Prior to guns, human beings were inherently unequal in terms of the amount of physical force they could exert on one-another. This creates an imbalance of power - which helps enable crime. Guns level that playing field, thereby discouraging crime. That's an excellent example of technology doing the opposite of what you describe.

You're fooling yourself if you believe guns haven't caused their fair share of problems as well, but that's an entirely different can of worms.

Compare their lifespan to ours.

Ya, thats the flipside of the coin.

 

[Robin]

I basically live for technology, my whole profession (or rather future profession) is based on the world constantly moving forward in terms of technological advancement. Ever since I was little that was the only field I wanted to work in. Technology has helped so many people and enriched so many peoples lives, its really interesting and fascinating stuff I want to see technology prosper ever further because I would like to one day maybe take a trip into space for a reasonable price and maybe even visit another planet....

So basically it does help humanity.....

Robin

 

[Famine]

There are pictures of their first Model T the bought for $750

The cars people had were very primitive and cost virtually nothing in today's standards, now about the cheapest car you can buy is $10,000 and still comes with airbags.

In 1910 it cost $1,075 to buy a new Ford. National average wage was 0.24c - the average person had to work a 37 hour week for more than two years to be able to afford one. The average income in the US is now over $40,000 - the average person only has to work for 3 months to afford your $10k new car.

 

[Danoff]

You'd be pretty hard pressed find much crime in a self-sufficient domestic culture embracing generalized reciprocity (as many used to until they recieved western influence).

Theft is fueled by needs and wants exceeding what a person can easily provide for themselves. Agriculture enables a successful person to acrue a greater amount of wealth (in form of food) than others... it causes disparity. The instant you've got someone in need of food with little or nothing to give for it, someone else with an excess that they're not willing to part ways with cheaply, you've got all the ingredients you need for thievery to occur.

Theft is not caused by disparity, or even need. To suggest so is to mischaracterize basic human instincts. Theft is driven by greed, a general lack of morality, and the opportunity to act upon that greed with little posibility of consequence.

There are plenty of historical examples where very powerful individuals stole from just about everyone around them. They had the ability to threaten force to acquire more - and so they did. All walks of life resort to thievery. A perfect distribution of resources would not eliminate the incentive for theft. People are never satistifed, people always want more - and some people will always be willing to act immorally to get it.

Your utopian nomadic existance sounds like a massive step backward to me. Lifespans, comfort, productivity, durability, all are drastically improved by the ability to settle an area of land rather than having to move from place to place carrying 100% of your resources at all times.

Humanity has gone nowhere but forward. Our lifespans have gone nowhere but upward. Our comfort level, free time, efficiency, safety, luxury, productivity, entertainment, access to information, medical care, and sheer number of opportunities in all areas of life have only drasticaly improved over time. Technology is the gift man gives himself. To fight that is to suggest that we'd be better off without brains, that we'd be better off living as animals, that for all of the thinking, planning, calculating, and experimenting we do - the net result is bad.

There is simply too much evidence to the contrary to subscribe to that notion.

 

[Blake]

In 1910 it cost $1,075 to buy a new Ford. National average wage was 0.24c - the average person had to work a 37 hour week for more than two years to be able to afford one.

Uh, how much for a used Ford?

 

[Joey D]

In 1910 it cost $1,075 to buy a new Ford. National average wage was 0.24c - the average person had to work a 37 hour week for more than two years to be able to afford one. The average income in the US is now over $40,000 - the average person only has to work for 3 months to afford your $10k new car.

I'm not sure if they bought it new or not, we have a receipt with the price of $750 on it, but it doesn't say the year or the age of the car.

I'm guessing these people made quite a bit of money though (we are guessing through bootlegging) since they owned a few houses, more then one car, and a farm. Not to mention they took vacations to Florida and California during the early 1900's. However, they might have come from a richer family...we just don't know. Hopefully by next week we will know more.

 

[Famine]

I'm not sure if they bought it new or not, we have a receipt with the price of $750 on it, but it doesn't say the year or the age of the car.

I'm guessing these people made quite a bit of money though (we are guessing through bootlegging) since they owned a few houses, more then one car, and a farm. Not to mention they took vacations to Florida and California during the early 1900's. However, they might have come from a richer family...we just don't know. Hopefully by next week we will know more.

Which is kind of the point... Technology - through more efficient production and raw material extraction methods - has now brought the automacar into reach of almost everyone and not just the rich.

 

[niky]

Technology doesn't destroy culture, it changes it. While I'm all for preserving the evidence of pre-technological culture, I can't help but feel that bemoaning the fact that technology destroys culture is a knee-jerk reaction... people like the old ways because they're comfortable. They're worn into our psyches like ditches where the water always flows.

Thus, a change of culture isn't really comfortable, but who's to say if it's better or worse? Only an observer completely removed from human culture and its norms can make an objective decision regarding that.

As for the rest of technology's effects, time-saving devices and the likes, there's always two ways to the thing... I'm not sure if sainted Murphy himself expressed it, but "the amount of work needing to be done always expands to fill the time in which one has to do it."

In other words, save some time here, and it creates more time within which to cram more work. But of course, there are always more and more ways to save time... and more and more automation. I can currently do three times the work I used to do... if I worked at a more efficient company, they'd make me... but as it is, I've just got more free time.

One area in which technology hasn't had an appreciable effect is in the improvement of the human genome.

Once a species has found an overwhelming advantage or edge over its competitors, evolution freezes. So it was with sharks and crocs, so it is with humans. Technology has more-or-less frozen us in the same state for the past couple of hundred thousand years. We haven't really gotten much smarter in that time, nor have we become superhumanly strong or resilient. We've gotten bigger, but that's about it.

Thus, crime, hatred, violence. An imperative of our genes is to protect our bloodline and to thrive. To ensure that our genes go on and that the genes of our competitors don't. Primitive men knew violence, when tribe met tribe. The ideal modern nomadic gatherers (Eskimos, Aborigines - probably the prime source of the idealistic view of primitive man) don't often fight each other because the scarceness of resources keeps tribes far apart. There are never enough resources to let them grow big enough in numbers to feel the need to compete violently.

Put them in lush areas, with lots of food... bigger numbers of humans... primitive tribesmen in the Indies fight with each other and eat each other due to stiff competition over land and resources.

Technology has made it possible to cram even more people together, bringing the competition to a higher level. Technology per se doesn't cause the wars that stem from this, it just puts more players on the field. And it puts them in new fields... on the seas, in the sky, on the air, on the net...

And it's always the more aggressive that survive. Whether it be those who are aggressive in terms of business, in terms of land seizure and utilization or even in terms of sexual conquests... they're the ones who thrive and prosper. I'm not going to get into the political aspect of it... there's bound to be a skeleton in any closet you open, be it American, Asian, Middle Eastern or European... that's just the nature of the game. The "evil" we see now is from some countries being left behind in certain aspects, be they economical, social, political or a combination of these, and appearing more "primitive" compared to more advanced societies.

Good thing social sciences, philosophy and religion are all constantly evolving to cope. Our modern concepts of morality help keep a check on all this aggression... but it can't stop it all. It'll take a major breakthrough in the social sciences and genetics to help "cure" these problems... but until then... that's just human, I guess.

 

[Joey D]

Technology doesn't destroy culture, it changes it. While I'm all for preserving the evidence of pre-technological culture, I can't help but feel that bemoaning the fact that technology destroys culture is a knee-jerk reaction... people like the old ways because they're comfortable. They're worn into our psyches like ditches where the water always flows.

I'm not so sure, as the one example I gave of the Yanomamö tribe in South America makes me believe that technology will destroy culture...errr let me rephrase that, it will destroy some cultures, or parts of a culture. The Yanomamö used to be very primitive by today's standards when they were found, but since then missionaries have forced Christianity down their throats, given them western clothes, and taught them western ways. Yes the older members still (I can't say in 2007 since I have seen a recent study on them) hold on to their old ways while incorporating new ways, but the younger generation is completely ignoring their past in favour of the future...this I don't agree with. The Yanomamö lived fine before missionaries showed up so I do see why we have to westernize them.

I do agree we have to preserve evidence (hence the archeology thing) because I believe it's important to us as a species to know how the past worked and how our ancestors lived.

Thus, a change of culture isn't really comfortable, but who's to say if it's better or worse? Only an observer completely removed from human culture and its norms can make an objective decision regarding that.

Agreed, but the only way to do that is to either get Mr. Ned the talking horse, K.I.T.T the talking Trans Am, or an alien being. The best thing we can do now is have "unbiased" anthropologist look into it. Sure it won't be 100% or even 75% accurate but it's the best we can do right now.

As for the rest of technology's effects, time-saving devices and the likes, there's always two ways to the thing... I'm not sure if sainted Murphy himself expressed it, but "the amount of work needing to be done always expands to fill the time in which one has to do it."

In other words, save some time here, and it creates more time within which to cram more work. But of course, there are always more and more ways to save time... and more and more automation. I can currently do three times the work I used to do... if I worked at a more efficient company, they'd make me... but as it is, I've just got more free time.

I don't think technology always saves time. The best example is the invention of the drive thru, I can go inside the bank, fastfood place, or drycleaners and get out faster then if I would have gone through the drive thru. Just the other day I went into a Taco Bell because I was a.) hungry and b.) didn't feel like waiting in the drive thru line. There were probably 4 or 5 cars in line. I managed to go inside, use the restroom, order my food, and walk back out to my truck before the last guy in line made it to the order box.

Another thing is cable internet, this has greatly slowed my productivity down because I can virtually do anything on the net now. Before with dial up I could just check this and that and get offline. Now that I have cable I can just jump on any time I want and do whatever...this has slowed down all my work because I can up to the minute information on anything. This is just me though...probably not like that for everyone.

But there are certain things I am grateful for if I didn't have a sound vehicle it would take me longer to drive the 20 miles to work, and so on.

One area in which technology hasn't had an appreciable effect is in the improvement of the human genome.

I haven't taken to many classes in this area so I'm not an expert, but I do agree with this as well.

Once a species has found an overwhelming advantage or edge over its competitors, evolution freezes. So it was with sharks and crocs, so it is with humans. Technology has more-or-less frozen us in the same state for the past couple of hundred thousand years. We haven't really gotten much smarter in that time, nor have we become superhumanly strong or resilient. We've gotten bigger, but that's about it.

Physically we haven't evolved and really the only thing I think that will happen to us as a species is that we eventually become one skin colour. Not exactly evolution but more based on sexual selection.

Culturally however we have evolved whether that be good or bad.

Thus, crime, hatred, violence. An imperative of our genes is to protect our bloodline and to thrive. To ensure that our genes go on and that the genes of our competitors don't. Primitive men knew violence, when tribe met tribe. The ideal modern nomadic gatherers (Eskimos, Aborigines - probably the prime source of the idealistic view of primitive man) don't often fight each other because the scarceness of resources keeps tribes far apart. There are never enough resources to let them grow big enough in numbers to feel the need to compete violently.

Both the Inuits and Aborigines are being introduced to a more civilized society so they are getting a taste of what our life is like. As far as I know both groups are hated (maybe someone from Australia can fill me in) by the civilized society for reasons unknown to me. I don't think they are fighting each other now because they are fighting the civilized people who hate them, take their land, and encroach on their culture.

Put them in lush areas, with lots of food... bigger numbers of humans... primitive tribesmen in the Indies fight with each other and eat each other due to stiff competition over land and resources.

And it's always the more aggressive that survive. Whether it be those who are aggressive in terms of business, in terms of land seizure and utilization or even in terms of sexual conquests... they're the ones who thrive and prosper. I'm not going to get into the political aspect of it... there's bound to be a skeleton in any closet you open, be it American, Asian, Middle Eastern or European... that's just the nature of the game. The "evil" we see now is from some countries being left behind in certain aspects, be they economical, social, political or a combination of these, and appearing more "primitive" compared to more advanced societies.

Pretty much the definition of "survival of the fittest".

Good thing social sciences, philosophy and religion are all constantly evolving to cope. Our modern concepts of morality help keep a check on all this aggression... but it can't stop it all. It'll take a major breakthrough in the social sciences and genetics to help "cure" these problems... but until then... that's just human, I guess.

Some social science, philosophy, and religion are evolving while others are stuck in the past. I can't determine whether this is really bad or really good. Maybe we need to keep a balance of the old ways that work and the new ones to replace the ones that suck.

 

[Boundary Layer]

Your utopian nomadic existance sounds like a massive step backward to me. Lifespans, comfort, productivity, durability, all are drastically improved by the ability to settle an area of land rather than having to move from place to place carrying 100% of your resources at all times.

Whoa whoa whoa. Slow down Dan. You're reading a little too far into what I said. I hadn't meant to suggest that we'd be better off tossing away every technological advancement that has occurred in the past 8000 years.
(though, reading back over my posts I can see how I'd easily come across that way).

The agricultural thing was only an example to demonstrate how one good technology can spring new and unforeseen difficulties on people requiring the creation of other new technologies to maintain a standard of living. That's all. For some reason you got all caught up on this crime thing...

My main point was:

Technology, by it's very nature, is supposed to make life more comfortable and enjoyable for those fortunate enough to afford it...and many technologies do. +1 to cutlery and seat cushions. But with all technologies, there is always a cost to be endured and it's when the costs are poorly anticipated that we get ourselves into trouble. Now, developing new innovations simply to cope with the ever expanding list of complex problems we've created for ourselves through widespread industrialization, overpopulation, and other socioeconomic pressures and to try to maintain a certain quality of life for the foreseeable future is how a large percentage of the population make their living.

At no point in history before widespread industrialization and specialization has human activity and advancement ever threatened their existence. As a result of our technological prowess we're faced with problems today that call for an immediate change in the way we live and the technologies we embrace. (I say immediate, but I mean when it's looked at on a grand scale spanning several thousand years of human existence)

Yes we live more cushy lives than Ogg and Grog, and that's great. But I believe humans as a race face larger and more complex problems today than at any other point in time as a result of all the increasingly complex technology we've been developing. Ogg and Grog may have worried about basic needs such as foraging/hunting food, shelter, and whether the sexy Ms. Thog like how they comb their back hair, etc, but ultimately, their failure to meet these needs would not spell doom to other cultures and societies half a world away.

What we have to deal with is finding alternative energy sources to fuel our industry and vehicles so we're able to provide food and goods to consumers. Failure means the gas tanks in the tractors and combines go dry and millions and millions of people across the globe go hungry.

We must curb climate change by global warming... unless we wish to unleash a Siberian climate on the UK by 2025 and put coastal cities in Europe and all over the globe under several feet of water. There will be widespread Famine (the HORROR! ) and drought, and we'll see a rise in the occurrence of weather related nature disasters if everything we've been reading about climate change by global warming is true (and frankly, I'd rather believe it is than to sit about and cross my fingers hoping that it isn't)

And perhaps it's a little ethnocentric to say so, but I see all of this as a much larger difficulty for humanity to overcome than worrying about whether Ogg and Grog's lunch outruns them (though Ogg and Grog might disagree).



Like I said in a previous post, this outlook might be slightly pessimistic. I feel sorta like I should be parading around with a "The End is Near" sign hanging around my neck... Take it with as much salt as you need.

Our lifespans have gone nowhere but upward. Our comfort level, free time, efficiency, safety, luxury, productivity, entertainment, access to information, medical care, and sheer number of opportunities in all areas of life have only drasticaly improved over time.

No denying that, nor had I ever meant to. Point was that this could all be temporary if we can't climb out of the grave we've been digging ourselves.

Anyways, I think I could be approaching this whole thread on a slightly different scale than Joey had intended. I'm looking at humanity as a whole and the do-or-die type of challenges we've made for ourselves in the not so distant future... his last post is slightly less grand, and more about the individual in the now.