Technology, does it help or harm humanity?

[Joey D]

It doesn't matter what point you make or how you look at it, I was asking a pretty general question.

 

[Grand Prix]

Technology would have to be good, otherwise we'll never get off this planet when the sun starts dying.

However, one problem I could see with developing technology even further is the humanization of computers. One flaw humans tend to have is to make everything seem like they have the "qualities" and personality that we have, in animals, in computer messages, even plants. A machine should be left as a machine, but the problem is that people want machines to be more human-like to do their own chores (ASIMO), and we can't stop engineers from doing this. Eventually corporations will make super-intelligent robots and computers to supply demand for an ever-lazying human population reliant on automation. Once they become self-aware, we can't go back. The consequences of creating a living machine, will most certainly be dire. Maybe we'll find a way to prevent machines from becoming self-aware, only time will tell.

 

[Dave A]

Technology is found in everything we change, we create the wheel, that's technology, we make that wheel lighter and easier to turn that's a technological advancment. Technology as a concept is not bad, technology in action depends on the application. For example, since the gun powerder age we (as in mankind) has spent billions and billions of pounds on producing weaponry to use in combat against other people. Danoff talked about guns creating a level playing field, I don't see it that way at all. Some guy sticks a gun in my face and the field is firmly favouring him. Guns create a means of disposing of another individual with little effort. But to go back to warfare specifically, we've had explosive devices created of the centuries, from cannons to grenades to rockets to atomic bombs. In the 20th century there was estimated to have been more wars than in the entire mans history before that. With this globalisation we saw the introduction of wars on a grander scale, then we had the first and second world wars and I think that since WWI or maybe II there has been 2 days in all thoes years when there hasn't been an armed conflict going on somewhere on the planet. Things like the "Little boy" nuclear bomb dropped over Hiroshima and the "Fat man" bomb dropped over Nagasaki we're in no way shape or form, good. They killed hundereds of thousands of people, primarily non-combatants. Ultimately of what use is technology like that good, technology to destroy the human race. Ofcourse with the current world situation countries like the US can't suddenly throw away their nuclear arsenal nor would I expect them too, but that wasn't the question.

Ultimately these technologies are not good. You can say that they are needed in order to create a balance between two nations standing off, if both nations have the capacity to obliterate each other then neither wants to attack the other. But thoes means of destruction should not be there in the first place, and the pure hatred that must be runing through someones veins for them to ever consider unleashing that weaponry must be staggering. ofcourse, that's really the main example of where technology is bad for mankind from a design level. Then you have technology that is designed for good but in application the results are bad, we've ripped down so many forrests and use dup so many natural resources that the planet could really start to struggle in the future. We have plastic wrappings and bags, the design that they keep your food clean and fresh and you can carry things in them are good, but when you chuck them away they take years and years to degrade. Ofcourse that's all starting to change, we've got biodegradable bags and so on these days, but ultimately technology can cause quite a mess.

Technology in other areas has created a much faster paced life but at the same time much technology allows us to be lazier in many ways as well. Globalisation allows more freedom, it gives people a chance to do more to learn more and to see more. Globalisation will and is changing a lot of cultures, but cultures change over time. If one influence doesn't change it, another will. You can talk about tribal cultures being changed by western influence, 1000 years ago that tribal culture might have been different again. We have more advanced medical procedures, more advanced sanitation and better communication which can be a massive benefit. So to me, it depends purely on the application.

 

[Danoff]

For some reason you got all caught up on this crime thing...

Because it's a really important point. I'm hoping that by not addressing it in your latest post you're willing to conceede that point, because I'd hate to think that you actually think that crime is spurred by technology.

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.

You're only pointing out how important the development of that technology was in the first place. Without it, all those people wouldn't be alive to need it. They'd have died due to high infant mortality rates, or disease, or famine. How would it be better to have them dead now than to worry about them dying later? The solution to oil supply is more technology. We invented a technology that relied on a temporary resource, we used it to maximum effect, and now we're looking for longer term - more sustainable solutions. I see no problem with that. And oil isn't exactly a major crisis anyway. So far it's been so plentiful that it's been cheaper than any viable alternatives. It isn't until it starts to get scarce or demand gets out of control that alternatives start becoming attractive. The existence of oil, and the technology that uses it is a good thing. I'd rather worry about whether we'll find an alternative for it in the next hundred years than whether I'd go without food TODAY.

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)

The whole "UK will freeze soon" scare is over. They no longer think it's a major concern. Antarctica has 90% of the world's ice, and it's currently accumulating ice. So where is all this water going to come from that will flood europe? The north pole HAS to lose ice just to prevent the water level from going down. I'm not a big fan of global warming alarmism. I don't think it's clear that we're responsible for general warming. I'm not even totally sold on the notion that it is warming. So I simply don't follow your "technology = global warming = death of the planet" progression.

But lets suppose for a moment that it's true - that we're causing an increase in global temperatures. Does it bother me? No. Again, I'd rather be concerned about the sea level 50 years from now, or the food supply 50 years from now, than I would be about finding food for my family today. And if we caused it, I believe we can reverse it. Think about it, we weren't even trying to cause it, and supposedly we did with yesterday's technology. Tomorrow's technology should be able to do something about it then - especially if we're actually trying to do something.

I agree with the premise, though, that technology gives us more power over our environment - and that gives us a greater ability to screw it up. It also gives us greater power to shape our environment to make our lives better. I'll take that trade. To think otherwise you'd have to think that human beings would be better off without brains - that the fruits of our minds make things worse. Again, I think there's far too much evidence to the contrary to support that notion.

 

[Dave A]

Because it's a really important point. I'm hoping that by not addressing it in your latest post you're willing to conceede that point, because I'd hate to think that you actually think that crime is spurred by technology.

Just to back this up a little, theft is spurred by greed and in the rarer occasions of a starving person stealing some food it's spurred on by need. But generally it's greed. Technology can give people more things to want that they can't have or don't want to work for, and thus provide more motivation for theft, but the actual driving force is still greed.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff talked about guns creating a level playing field, I don't see it that way at all. Some guy sticks a gun in my face and the field is firmly favouring him.

Same with a knife, sword, crossbow, etc. But if you have a gun too, the field is level. If you and he both had a sword, it would not be as level. One of you might be a better swordsman, or stronger or faster. Guns are the rare sort of weapon that is as useful in the hands of an 80 year old female as it is in the hands of a 20 year old male. That's what I meant about it leveling the playing field - it gives everyone immediate access to the same amount of force.

Things like the "Little boy" nuclear bomb dropped over Hiroshima and the "Fat man" bomb dropped over Nagasaki we're in no way shape or form, good. They killed hundereds of thousands of people, primarily non-combatants.

Those bombs saved lives ultimately - and are thusly good by your metric (number of lives). But strictly counting the number of lives is not an appropriate metric for war - otherwise all war would be bad. If you're going to say fewest lives lost = best, then we should not have gotten involved in WWII, America should not have fought for its independence, etc. etc. There are larger things at stake than human lives.

But thoes means of destruction should not be there in the first place, and the pure hatred that must be runing through someones veins for them to ever consider unleashing that weaponry must be staggering.

Not at all. Those weapons are created with the idea of preserving a way of life. In the case of the US, they were unleashed in defense against an invading aggressor - surely a noble cause.

 

[Blake]

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.

Yeah, every year on the 26th of January we celebrate our invasion and how we oppressed the natives through attempted genocide. It’s a great day—beer, lamb, flag burning, racially prejudiced chants, the works. 👍

 

[Joey D]

America does the same thing on November 25th, except we eat a big dead bird and watch two crappy football teams play a long boring game.

 

[<_Spike_>]

Same with a knife, sword, crossbow, etc. But if you have a gun too, the field is level. If you and he both had a sword, it would not be as level. One of you might be a better swordsman, or stronger or faster. Guns are the rare sort of weapon that is as useful in the hands of an 80 year old female as it is in the hands of a 20 year old male. That's what I meant about it leveling the playing field - it gives everyone immediate access to the same amount of force

See this is the part of technology I see as not so great, it is good when it's in the hands of those using it to defend a country or the like...but put it in an average man on the street who doesn't use nor need it and you've got a big can of worms everywhere.

Unfortunately, two people each with a gun is not necessarily level, one may have quicker reactions, one may not have any instinct/wish to harm or kill therefore hesitating. On the off chance, gun vs hands may not go the way you'd think, it all depends on the user...technology is only successful if those using it know how to use it efficiently. Of course one may be sniping, the other simply searching out in the open...yadda yadda...a level playing field isn't exactly present in any situation involving a weapon, be it hand-to-hand or a projectile firing weapon of some kind.

 

[Gonz013]

All technology is potentially good.
Like most things, it depends who's hands its in.
Biotechnology is a good example. It can cure disease, or kill millions.

 

[niky]

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.

Well, you'd have to separate the effects of technology and the effects of imperialist expansion (hate to sound communist, but it is). This is a case of one culture using its advancements in technology and the social and religious sciences, and using it to wipe out another culture. Technology isn't the root cause, there, simply a tool used to expand one culture (capital culture) and one religion (Christianity).

This has happened on my island, too, which was first converted to the Spanish culture (about 300 years ago), then the American culture (about 100 years ago). I'd always wondered what people were so angry about... having been born into the American culture (N.Y., N.Y.), I couldn't see any negatives about it. But now that I've had more life experience, I can honestly say: there's good, there's bad, and hey, we're still a unique culture underneath all that modernity...

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.

Agreed.

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.

The drive-thru still saves you time, simply becaue not everyone is in the same line. But it does create more work for the fast-food employees. Cable internet? A good example of leisure time expanding to fill time freed up by faster connection... In both cases, time was saved, and more work/business/leisure was created to fill in the time freed up.

Same with money. I've got ten times the money now that I had in college. I could fulfill my dream of buying that ratty old Nissan and throwing a turbo lump into it... but my expenses have expanded to take up most of my so-called "excess income".

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.

Hear! Hear!

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

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.

It might happen, it might not. Latent Xenophobia (part cultural, part genetic? who knows?) will always mean a large percentage of the population will always choose black for black, white for white, brown for brown, etcetera. Thus, while we have an ever increasing population of mulattos (or mongrels, whatever you want to call us... ), you'll still have preserves of Caucasians, Blacks, Orientals, Indians, Asians, etcetera.

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.

Not fighting as hard as some other cultures. But I'm not very familiar with the current political situation in either area, so I can't comment.

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

Yup.

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.

Well, depends on what the people want. Two important areas that don't seem to be going anywhere are political sciences and religious sciences. In both cases, it seems that expediency, tradition and general stubbornness have helped perpetrate a situation in which old ways still hold true.

While you state that religion is evolving, the amount of change simply isn't significant. While the previous two popes have helped the Catholic Church to shed centuries worth of dogma, and while various Protestant groups have splintered away to find a more modern path for Christianity, it is inherently a dead religion.

What do I mean by dead? It's not dead like Zoroastrianism (although I could be wrong on that one), it's dead like Latin. A lot of people still study it, but nothing new gets added to the basic texts. Sure, there are a lot of dissertations and writings about the "Bible", but the "Bible" has gone from being a living, breathing, evolving text (updated for quite a while after the death of Christ) to being frozen at some point ordained by some early Church leaders.

Thus, while we can argue about interpretations and the like, we cannot alter the basic tenets of Christianity, or resolve the dichotomy between the underlying Judaic religion and Christianity itself (which is why we have so many "blood and brimstone" preachers and evangelists, who wield the religion like a spiked club).

It's the same with most popular religions. You can substitute "Islam" with "Christianity" in the above paragraphs, for example. And while we do have modern religions coming about, the rate of subscription isn't enough to qualify them as a development... and they often founder when the next "fad" religion comes about. I would consider religious science to have "evolved" if a new religion comes about that unifies many of the older ones... or provides some new concept about spirituality that is embraced by many.

-----

I'd answer other posts, but Danoff seems to have that covered.

Although I do agree with Boundary Layer... Global Warming or not, there has to be a fundamental change in the way humanity uses resources, to increase the likelihood of our cultural survival (even after the collapse of modern society, mankind as a species may survive) in the next few centuries.

And ultimately, we need huge advancements in philosophy, technology and religion to ensure our survival in the next few thousand years. In our current state, too few people seem to care enough about enabling man to leave the solar system... which we eventually have to do to avoid extinction.

 

[AOS-]

to simply put it this way, Technology is suppose to make life easier, but now people have taken it for granted, especially little children nowadays.

People jsut compete with this technology to make money, Currently we are working on developing environmentally friendly stuff, yet not much has been made, becasue those people with the stacks of money dont want to spend, they are greedy, thus technology we have now is not of the fullest potential that it should've been since 2005. If people weren't so greedy about speical printed paper, EVERYONE would be living a happy life. What i mean by this is that people are jsut building things using technology just for the benfit of themself, they don't care about others.

Also the thing of crimes, its mostly caused becasue their parents don't care about them, no i dont have hard evidence, becasue i think this through in my head with such logic and straightforwardness that even jsut saying this now will almost prove my point. Sorry if what i say is random, my philosphy is not yet stabilzed, it's too tied up with how greedy man is and how ignorant people have been over the past 6-8 years... it also binds together with how the world is pretty much screwed for life...

 

[ledhed]

Big time help .

 

[Stevisiov]

it's too tied up with how greedy man is and how ignorant people have been over the past 6-8 years... it also binds together with how the world is pretty much screwed for life...

So ignorance and greed is bound to this millenium, hmm

The world is screwed for life, hmm

you are just to busy looking into the misery of the world to see that decent things happen, its best to stop with the doom and gloom and try looking at things rationally. Ignorance and greed has always been there, i would imagine it's no worse than it usually is.