Stimulate technology or stick to the core?

[Blue Wolf]

Should we stimulate technology, for instance space travel, or try to not figure out too much and stick to the basics? The world is in an ever-evolving motion technology-wise. should we put a halt to it at some point? and if so, how would we do that?

[Neytirislover93]

I say we should stop advancing technology
When We find a Pandora like planet So I can move there.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Neytirislover93

I say we should stop advancing technology
When We find a Pandora like planet So I can move there.

Given that interstellar spaceships don't exist yet, that sounds somewhat counterproductive.

[Blue Wolf]

I think that technology is somewhat part of us already. Nature is an evolution that you shouldn't manually break. If say half of the planet wanted to stop technology from advancing and the other half didn't, it would lead to a conflict that couldn't be, or at least it would be very difficult, resloved. In my opinion, the core is something we carry within us; Nature is always there, for it is everything. A forest alone doesnt make nature, It's the complete picture. So I would say stimulate technology in such a way that it leads to a more desirable world. Use it for vital purposes, and don't let it cause great ecological problems. That's why I used the space travel example; To me it's a step that we shouldn't take yet, but instead we should focus on more important things around us that need our attention. Go with the flow so to say, but with the right mindsetting and intentions.

[Fighter-of-Wars]

Technology as we know it has only been around for 100, 150 years. Most of that technology is based around easy energy availability. People rely on technology but a human doesn't.

Let me clarify. Ever since energy, invention, and industrialization started booming. Life was very similar to the way it had been for thousands and thousands of years. People built homes with the bare necessities, either worked for food or grew it themselves and just lived and raised a family. People could generally take care of themselves and most everything was done by man and beast. Progress was relatively slow to nonexistent in most parts of the world when compared to the last 70 years.

Society has become dependent on this new found technology because it makes life easier supposedly. All this technology runs on energy, minerals, resources. Stuff that has been built up in the earth over billions of years. We, as humans, have used up vast amounts of said materials in the last century. When it all runs out, whether its 10 years, 100 years, or a thousand years. Humans, if we are still around, will be back to doing things the old fashioned way unless materials are found elsewhere.

Where do we draw the line at what is technology and what isn't? How can a computer be technology when a table or stove is not? Just because it's more complex doesn't mean it isn't something that was created by man with different elements of science and inventiveness to have a function? Do we go back to 70 years ago level, 1800's level, or older yet? Do we take out all technology and live like cavemen?

I believe that technology has its place. But we as a society have become over dependent on it in our everyday lives. We trust that the system which is mostly based on a very delicate bit of technology will supply us with our everyday needs. What happens when that fails? How many people will starve because the electronics in just about every aspect of our society fails. Sure, there will be government help to bring food and water to areas effected. How long does that last?

Just a local example. This winter our area had many bad snow storms. Heck we were even the coldest spot in the US for a few days. During that weather, people panicked and bought all the bread, milk, and eggs in the stores. There was nothing on the shelves. Propane tripled in price. There was such a demand on the system that everything went crazy. And that was just a bad winter storm. What happens when something worse happens?

People don't believe in having food in the house to get you through the winter, don't believe in having a way to heat your home when there is no power or fuel. The world has gone soft, people have gone soft, because of this technology. If we could take a step back 100 years. We should. There was less people, less technology. People had a stronger sense of honor.

Anyway, technology isn't doing anyone any good. We think it is. But it isn't. All the chemicals, all the waste, all the problems that have been created. Its building up and making people sick, ruining land and people still aren't singing to the high heavens when they wake up in the morning because they have AC, or have a coffee maker. We have technology but is life easier because of it? People still work all day, people are still in debt, people still aren't happy.

What I'm trying to say is. Stick to the basics. People were happy 1000 years ago with what they had then. No reason we can't be happy with that today.

I need to stop, I'm ranting and raving. But I believe I've said my view.

[ahoragi]

I say stick to the basics and stop technology improvements. We don't need 90% of the crap we invent these days. We are just lazy humans who want the "easy way" of life.

It's very sad.

[Blue Wolf]

Fighter-of-wars: I do sincerily agree with you, just deem it impossible to ditch most technology now. I think that in current society there is no such thing as a "shortcut" to that. like I said, it would create unresolvable conflicts. Thats why I think we should go with the flow and invest in making the world better and better. My dream would be a 'natural' world again, but thinking like that now would be a step too far.

[Raptor]

Sorry, as an engineering student I vehemently disagree that we should "stick to the basics". No doubt that industrialization has left its ugly mark on the environment, but we can't change the past. Right now we should place more focus on how to make our energy usage and technological developments sustainable.

Frankly, I see our ability to harness technology is something as intrinsic to Homo sapiens as our being bipedal, i.e. it's one of our evolutionary advantages.

Saying that people were just as happy 1000 years ago without all of our technology is a rather misleading statement. Considering that science and technology has vastly improved lifespan, medicine and human health, and our knowledge of Earth and the universe, think twice before making that statement.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Saying that people were just as happy 1000 years ago without all of our technology is a rather misleading statement. Considering that science and technology has vastly improved lifespan, medicine and human health, and our knowledge of Earth and the universe, think twice before making that statement.

This might well be true, but people 1000 years ago could not conceive of what the world would look like now, so its kinda a moot point.

[ahoragi]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Sorry, as an engineering student I vehemently disagree that we should "stick to the basics". No doubt that industrialization has left its ugly mark on the environment, but we can't change the past. Right now we should place more focus on how to make our energy usage and technological developments sustainable.

Frankly, I see our ability to harness technology is something as intrinsic to Homo sapiens as our being bipedal, i.e. it's one of our evolutionary advantages.

Saying that people were just as happy 1000 years ago without all of our technology is a rather misleading statement. Considering that science and technology has vastly improved lifespan, medicine and human health, and our knowledge of Earth and the universe, think twice before making that statement.

We've been trying to do that for years and not getting anywhere. Technology will continue to improve and this will lead to depleting our natural resources that much faster. I see it as technology being what leads to our extinction as it has to thousands of species so far.

Medicine and improved lifespan leads to overpopulation cuz people are living far longer than they used to while also popping out babies at an alarming rate. Overpopulation leads to over-use of resources. If we run out of resources then we are done for, no matter how good medicine and technology becomes.

So I agree we were way better off a 1000 years ago than we are today.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by ahoragi

We've been trying to do that for years and not getting anywhere.

Explain. We are developing aircraft with better and better fuel efficiency. Our technology with renewable sources of energy is improving. Can we do more? Definitely. But just because we face developmental challenges or don't see immediate results doesn't mean we aren't "getting anywhere".

Technology will continue to improve and this will lead to depleting our natural resources that much faster. I see it as technology being what leads to our extinction as it has to thousands of species so far.

What about the sun? I think that will last a while longer. Or how about bicarbonate in ocean water? If we can eventually develop fusion reactors, then we are looking at vast sources of clean energy.

Medicine and improved lifespan leads to overpopulation cuz people are living far longer than they used to while also popping out babies at an alarming rate.

And what do you know, some of the least technologically developed countries have some of the highest population growth.

Overpopulation leads to over-use of resources. If we run out of resources then we are done for, no matter how good medicine and technology becomes.

Sure, relinquishing our technology and medicine might increase our mortality rate enough to reduce our population. But have you ever considered that technology can mitigate the effects overpopulation, or maybe even reverse it to some extent? In the other extreme, a nuclear war can also help with overpopulation.

So I agree we were way better off a 1000 years ago than we are today.

What is your definition of better off? Instead of fantasizing, have you even done any research on what life was like 1000 years ago? And what modern amenities or even basic needs are you willing to surrender to live as life was back then? How about the basic human rights you take for granted now?

[Fighter-of-Wars]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Sorry, as an engineering student I vehemently disagree that we should "stick to the basics". No doubt that industrialization has left its ugly mark on the environment, but we can't change the past. Right now we should place more focus on how to make our energy usage and technological developments sustainable.

This is true, we can't change the past. But we can see where our future is headed by seeing where we have come from. And we have come from sustainable, non encroaching, mostly independent of fossil fuels. To where at our current rate of growth and expansion there will be an end in our future. 1000 years ago there wasn't that. True, there was disease, famine. But it was mainly localized to certain areas. Now there is a global problem. And at the rate of technological advancement vs the rate of global decline. Problems are going to get worse and worse.

Saying that people were just as happy 1000 years ago without all of our technology is a rather misleading statement. Considering that science and technology has vastly improved lifespan, medicine and human health, and our knowledge of Earth and the universe, think twice before making that statement.

I did think twice. I though a long time before I made that statement. And I wouldn't say that is has vastly improved lifespan. And what does our knowledge of Earth and the Universe gain us in relation to happiness? People aren't living to be 150 as promised when medicine started really taking off. People still die at 30, 40, 50, and 60. There is still childhood cancer. So your statement of science and technology vastly improving lifespan is very weak.

[auroraglacialis]

What is technology - just machines and computers and iPhones? Or can we develop a "technology" that is focussed on maintaininge the earth? How is developing for example a permaculture landscape less worth of being considered to be a technologcial advance than the new destructive gadget for reading facebook. How is developing a technology to build a house out of wood and loam and sand less of an advance than the newest development in concrete buildings which are ugly - our brains should go and develop technologies that make sense for us and the world around us, and we should consider technology as something more than industrial technology. Developing good ways to work together, to build communities, to find consensus in a discussion, that is also a technology.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Fighter-of-Wars

This is true, we can't change the past. But we can see where our future is headed by seeing where we have come from. And we have come from sustainable, non encroaching, mostly independent of fossil fuels. To where at our current rate of growth and expansion there will be an end in our future. 1000 years ago there wasn't that. True, there was disease, famine. But it was mainly localized to certain areas. Now there is a global problem. And at the rate of technological advancement vs the rate of global decline. Problems are going to get worse and worse.

Learning from the past is one thing, but I can't see how using it to extrapolate future consequences (with a few doses of slippery slope logic) is a solid argument against technology. I don't see what you mean by encroaching. I mean, doesn't any agricultural society qualify by that definition? And it's true, technology has drastically increased the scale of such "encroachment" by enabling the expansion of human presence on Earth. But why pin the blame on technology? Human societal characteristics bear just as much responsibility. Stopping the development of technology doesn't solve the problem.

I did think twice. I though a long time before I made that statement. And I wouldn't say that is has vastly improved lifespan. And what does our knowledge of Earth and the Universe gain us in relation to happiness?

"Us"? Perhaps you are indifferent to the knowledge that we've accumulated, but many others, myself included, don't agree. I don't see happiness as a refuge for ignorance. I personally find satisfaction in the new discoveries enabled by science.

People aren't living to be 150 as promised when medicine started really taking off. People still die at 30, 40, 50, and 60. There is still childhood cancer. So your statement of science and technology vastly improving lifespan is very weak.

We're talking about average lifespan here. Of course people can die at young ages, but what are the current distributions compared to 1000 years ago? In fact, the countries with the shortest average lifespan happen to be those that don't have access to technology. Advancements in medicine and biology has reduced the mortality rate due to birth, disease, injury, etc. I can't see how that isn't a good thing.

[Fighter-of-Wars]

Originally Posted by Raptor

"Us"? Perhaps you are indifferent to the knowledge that we've accumulated, but many others, myself included, don't agree. I don't see happiness as a refuge for ignorance. I personally find satisfaction in the new discoveries enabled by science.

I, myself, see happiness as what makes one fulfilled. Everyone has there own things that make them happy. But what is it that makes many people unhappy in today's world? We go to school, we learn, we are smarter than we were. Even people with large bank accounts and everything they could ask for are still depressed. Why is that? Because even though technology has given people everything they could ask for, it still can't fulfill them.

I am mostly indifferent to advancements made. They have their positives but they also have their negatives. I'm proud of us as a species to be able to innovate and create. But then we use the things we create with little thought as to how they affect us in the long run. What have we as humans created that hasn't somehow created a negative action somewhere else?

We're talking about average lifespan here. Of course people can die at young ages, but what are the current distributions compared to 1000 years ago? In fact, the countries with the shortest average lifespan happen to be those that don't have access to technology. Advancements in medicine and biology has reduced the mortality rate due to birth, disease, injury, etc. I can't see how that isn't a good thing.

What you don't see is what causes disease and injury. Leading cause of death is Cardiovascular disease, then Cancer, then Chronic lower respiratory diseases. What causes these? Poor Diet, Pollution, low physical activity level, stress. Too many people driving in smog filled cities to supermarkets to buy pre-prepared fat and preservative filled foods after a long work day. As a result we have to create the medicine to fix many of the problems we, ourselves, create.

I don't see what you mean by encroaching. I mean, doesn't any agricultural society qualify by that definition

Yes, its true. Agriculture does encroach on the natural order of an ecosystem. But, as population increased, so did the need for Agriculture. Many Native American tribes hunted and gathered because there was enough local food sources to support themselves. But yes, even Native Americans farmed. But it was a non chemical, organic farm and wasn't near the size, scale, or environmental impact of modern day farms.