Is technology and environmentalism compatible? Is technology neutral?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Fosus

I don't either.

--------------------
Conflict?

Fair enough, I should have said 'as long as humanity will' and clarified that all resources will run out eventually, but whether or not this will happen before the extinction of humans / destruction of Earth / loss of Earth's kinetic energy / death of the sun is another matter, which is hugely dependent on the rate they are used at.

As for your point about the population, it's still rather unclear to me.

Earth is overpopulated. ONE strategy is to significantly reduce the population. Another is to spread it out more - move excess off Earth. I didn't say either was any better or more plausible, just that they are two different solutions.

Just because a nonexistent thing "could have done the same", doesn't make us any less responsible or our actions.

Neither does it give humans any special quality.

You're completely missing the point here. Tsaheylu or riding an Ikran are in complete harmony with the nature. Cars and cellphones are not.

What if they weren't? Would anti-technology people continue their 'holier than thou' attitude against them?
A life without meaning, without enjoyment and happiness is completely pointless. That doesn't justify destruction for its own sake, but what is reasonable. You can make such an argument with hunting, for example.

As for "not everything exists to make life easier, but to make it HAPPIER", unlike Ikran and Tsaheylu, cars and cellphones are just dead pieces of random material.

Which give us means to accomplish things that are not directly possible and as such, enjoy life.

I bet that everything the Na'vi have created, every tool, every instrument, every piece of clothing, is merely for making things easier. Definitely not to bring happiness simply by existing.

Read the survival guide again.

Happiness comes from the contact with other living beings. For example: Humans can live in miserable conditions and even be happy, as long as they have a community or just a single friend to share everything with. Having a car wouldn't help the slightest bit.

Yet they allow us to actually have contact with others, to experience places we could otherwise never reach, to experience the whole world and not some tiny part of it.
Either way, I'm not going to respond to any more of such analogies as the truth is, I'd give up everything for THAT life without a second though, but I can't expect to lose everything for nothing in return, I can't expect to try to survive when for thousands of years, evolution has directed humans away from that being that did survive like that.

I think anyone who completely opposes technology should try surviving without it, without a large group of people to rely on (remember, anything you can't find naturally is technology, including clothes, tents, any weapons for hunting that are more than just sticks and rocks - arguably, even concepts like making fires. Many would likely die, and I'm sure many of the people who survived would have a new appreciation for thing in life that do improve the quality.

[Fosus]

A very good and thoughtful post Tsyal Makto. I agree with you.


I'll multi quote some posts to keep track of the discussion. Hell of a job but too many times it seems like we forget what were were talking about 2 posts back.

Originally Posted by Human No More

I didn't say either was any better or more plausible, just that they are two different solutions.

You said
"It (pupulation) is already too large, it would make more sense to stabilise it at a lower population". Clearly stating you think this is the better choise. However, thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Neither does it give humans any special quality.

I disagree. Sentience. (the same point you have used in many of your posts to put humans above other living beings bites back here) Humans know whether their actions are wrong or right. Our definitions of wrong and right just happen to be different which is the major reason we are opposed in this debate.

Originally Posted by Human No More

What if they weren't? Would anti-technology people continue their 'holier than thou' attitude against them?

Tsaheylu and Ikran (given that they existed like presented in Avatar) are not technology. This makes it pointless to compare them to technology (at least in this subject).

Originally Posted by Human No More

Which give us means to accomplish things that are not directly possible and as such, enjoy life.

Right. "Bringing happiness" and "helping you to enjoy life" are very different. You can enjoy many things that eventually let you down. The instances are countless. I'm keeping my head here. Dead pieces of whatever, while keeping your mind preoccupied, and letting you "enjoy life", do not bring happiness.

Originally Posted by Human No More

I think anyone who completely opposes technology should try surviving without it, without a large group of people to rely on (remember, anything you can't find naturally is technology, including clothes, tents, any weapons for hunting that are more than just sticks and rocks - arguably, even concepts like making fires. Many would likely die, and I'm sure many of the people who survived would have a new appreciation for thing in life that do improve the quality.

I agree with you here. Though I don't know anyone who is completely opposing the technology. Anyway, I would like to clarify that I against technology, but neither I am black/white regarding this subject.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Earth is overpopulated. ONE strategy is to significantly reduce the population. Another is to spread it out more - move excess off Earth. I didn't say either was any better or more plausible, just that they are two different solutions.

The last part saves it. Because otherwise I would have had to point at that it is so extremely unlikely that space travel would in any way solve Earths overpopulation. Was Europe half empty after America was "found"? Not really - the discovery of new lands to conquer did not lead to a significant long-term decrease in the Settlers original locality

Originally Posted by Human No More

[on cellphones and cars beeing unsustainable]A life without meaning, without enjoyment and happiness is completely pointless. That doesn't justify destruction for its own sake, but what is reasonable.

"Reasonable destruction" - SRSLY?
Anyways - the identification of these gadgets and "meaning" is striking, as is the perceived necessity of having them for happiness.
Do you really think, people are now (with cellphones) actually happier and have more meaningful lifes than when my generation was young and we had "only" regular phones? How does it relate to each other to call a friend 5 times a day on the cellphone to visiting that friend IRL?

Yet they allow us to actually have contact with others, to experience places we could otherwise never reach, to experience the whole world and not some tiny part of it.

So these things are tools - to achieve something else that then actually brings the meaning and happiness. The happiness is from having contact with others and from being in new places. It think that is an important distinction as to reach these things,there are other means.

I think anyone who completely opposes technology should try surviving without it, without a large group of people to rely on (remember, anything you can't find naturally is technology, including clothes, tents, any weapons for hunting that are more than just sticks and rocks)

That is nonsense. It relates to the way of life proposed as a fullblown capitalist industrial exploitive civilization relates to your worldview!
The point is neiter to be alone nor to abandon all tools. Under such conditions, humans will suffer and die. It is as far from the way humans thrive best as the current society. Humans need a group of people, a tribe or band to survive. And they also need tools. The distinction is, that tools can be made by each person or within a small group (<Dunbars Number), while technology needs a large scale complex mass society with exploitation of resources and wage labor to exist.
There are indeed a couple of things that emerge and I am surprised that you did not mention them yourself as they sort of support the idea that civilization could actually go somewhere, so I will sort of shoot at myself by mentioning them, but I want them to be in the discussion.
One of them is the open source movement (which allows people to cooperate freely and without wage labor on their own account). The more interesting one is the fab/rep movement, which founds on the idea to have microscale production units that can be built and used by small groups of people and that can produce a variety of things. They do of course have flaws (like still demaning importation of resources, mainly metals and plastics), but the do allow small groups or even single persons to fabricate items, including the means of production themselves. By the above definition, these would then be tools and not technologies, as they are in complete control of such a "tribe" or a single person, which makes them identical to a stone axe or a bow.

Originally Posted by Tsyal

Even beyond simply the environmental message, is the underlining message of humanity needing to find true balance with nature, beyond what the current "green" mindset is.

There is even a term for this, I found out recently. It is called "deep ecology" (nice to have a box to crawl into )

Originally Posted by Tsyal

Because in actuality, there is no "environment," where all the rest of the non-human plant and animal life is domed off in a seperate biosphere from us. There is no "human world" and "natural world," there is just "the world." Period. No matter how much we believe otherwise, humanity, and all it's baggage, is a part of the world, the same world that nature shares. The biggest downfall of the current environmentalist movement is this separatist attitude

There is a book on that subject called "Ecology without Nature", that argues that this duality is in fact nonsense and I thzink one has to agree on that. The danger that lies within that argument is of course that it can lead to a new dualism of how to act upon it that is harder to define in terms of what is "best". That dualism is on one side occupied by the mindset you describe - to find a balance, to feel equal to the animals and the trees and the rivers - to strive for harmony. The other side is that it gives an excuse to do almost anything with the argument that if humans and their acts are part of the world/Nature, anything they do is by definition natural, even polluting rivers and blowing up mountains. This plays into the hands then of those who even accept technology as life and therefore say that a road full of colorful diverse cars is of similar inherent value than a river full of colorful and diverse fish.
If we accept the dissolution of the duality between unique human technology and the rest of the natural world, we will need to find new ways of defining what we regard as desireable and what not. I think then it becomes vital to listen to intuition and emotion again, which is something the world has forgotten to do in terms of technology. Because we will have to make a distinction between an act that pollutes a river, one that consumes the river and one that does not do so. We all know in our hearts what is "right" and "wrong" in these acts, but it is a lot harder to define it in terms of the materialistic world view that is prevalent. It leads directly to the economic view of the world with a "price tag" attached to every thing. Only then can we in terms of economics calculate if the damage that is done compensates for the benefits gained. And in doing this, the doors are open to an increasingly complex (who defines value, who calculates all the impacts and benefits) and insane system of utilitarianism.

I am not argueing to stick to the dualism (actually I agree in that it makes things worse), but I see a danger in it as well as a chance and the need to clearly think about how to deal with the pressing questions beyond dropping that duality.

Originally Posted by Tsyal

Though I am a bit more technologically liberal than aurora, I'm with her on this topic, at least in regards to how she views nature.

Haha - I think that is a bit of a misconception. I know, I come off utterly anti-technology here, but that stems from a couple of points like my distinction between technology and tools and in terms of a discussion on true sustainability. I do not say, that there has to be a big bang and everyone living only with rocks and sticks - I think a better solution to the problem of technology would definitely involve a reduction in many areas while keeping others for a while. I think, and probably agree widely with HNM here, that by reducing impact drastically (!), keeping the technologies (or rather techniques and tools) that really are truely beneficial to human experience and that are having a low impact on other humans and nonhumans humanity could go a long way. Eventually, even these would not be sustainable, but there would be a long period of innovation that could create truely sustainable ways. By giving the world a chance to coexist with humans, a basis for a long term, thoughtful development would be laid. It can still be debated if that would "lead anywhere" given the "constraint" of sustainability, but it would at least be some sort of balance. Sadly, I consider the likelyhood of this happening voluntarily and in the timeframe required so extremely unlikely that I feel depressed.

Scientists have said for the last 20 years that biodiversity/the oceans/the climate could be saved if people would act now and decisively by switching to this or that new and more sane technology within a few years, by reducing emissions within a decade and so on. They were largely ignored and now as their timeframe runs out, we see that they have been right, that this would have been the chance to act. Nowadays, people claim the same again. They say that if we reduce CO2 emissions to the levels prior to 1990 within a decade, we could still have a global warming of "only 2°C". Have you seen Kopenhagen and the predictions for the conference coming up? Nothing again. Weak promises at best or downright opposition even.

The steps that would have to be taken are drastic and have to be realized quickly, but there is not even a hint that this is happening - just as 20 years ago. This is why I have no hope that this will work.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

"Reasonable destruction" - SRSLY?

For example - I buy paper. I understand that for it to be produced, trees are destroyed. Whenever possible, I try buy paper that is FSC approved, meaning that the forests it comes from are managed and inspected and for every tree destroyed, at least two are planted plus no entire areas are destroyed. I don't like the fact of what has to happen, but I do still find it necessary. In the end, what hatters is that we just leave something like we found it as a minimum, preferably in a better state. If we kill an animal, we kill a weak one who has a lower chance of survival naturally and avoid killing any that would harm the population such as the only fertile individual or one that is caring for young. If we cut down a tree for wood, we only take a few from one place and plant replacements. We give areas a chance to recover.

Anyways - the identification of these gadgets and "meaning" is striking, as is the perceived necessity of having them for happiness.
Do you really think, people are now (with cellphones) actually happier and have more meaningful lifes than when my generation was young and we had "only" regular phones? How does it relate to each other to call a friend 5 times a day on the cellphone to visiting that friend IRL?

None of which has any relevance to the neutrality or otherwise of their existence (plus I say that yes, some people do use things unnecessarily, but on the other hand, without any communication , I would not know 75% of my best friends, and it would be a 45 minute trip even to ask an AFK friend something.

So these things are tools - to achieve something else that then actually brings the meaning and happiness. The happiness is from having contact with others and from being in new places. It think that is an important distinction as to reach these things,there are other means.

Yes, I completely agree, but if they don't exist, then those opportunities are not available.

As I said in the previous post, much of this discussion is interesting, and perhaps I have been gradually driven into replying without making an overall more coherent point, but in the end it is unrelated to the actual topic - the NEED for technology is completely different to neutrality.

I think, and probably agree widely with HNM here, that by reducing impact drastically (!), keeping the technologies (or rather techniques and tools) that really are truely beneficial to human experience and that are having a low impact on other humans and nonhumans humanity could go a long way.

Now this, I can agree with. Realyl, the ebst of both worlds is what I consider the ideal situation.

Eventually, even these would not be sustainable, but there would be a long period of innovation that could create truely sustainable ways.

Hasn't that been my point for the entire thread?