ForumGarden

A prudent society would put technology on hold

The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.

McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.

The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.

In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war. Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.

The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.

We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology. What do you think about this serious matter?

coberst wrote: A prudent society would put technology on hold

The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.

McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.

The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.

In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war. Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.

The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.

We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology. What do you think about this serious matter?




Its an intersting opinion, but you will not be surprised to learn that i fundametally disagree. Its putting the cart before the horse, certain types of societies drive technical advance, our society and technology are completely linked to each other and you can't have one without the other. It may from some perspective be a pleasant idea to return to a supposedly more golden age where some sort of balanance was struck bewtween the needs of people, the environment, and the manipulation of that environment by technology. But this is not looking clearly at the situation. Since men began to build cities and plough fields our course has been set, and I don't see how without killing off most of the population we could return to a pre-industrial age as the main problem would be how to feed people.

The second point is that its also impossible to hold a certain level of development static and neither go forward or backwards, you will do either one or the other, its simply imposible to stay still. Human beings have an instintive urge to better their environment in order to make their lives more secure and comfotable, it may be that they are not actually doing this in many instances of technical development, but the need remains, and its not an intellectual need, but a biological one. Also, as soon as one generation, elite, or economic class thinks it has cracked creating a perfect society, another generation of children would grow up and want something else, its a constant theme in human history, societies don't stay static becuase the indivdual members all change over a given period, so change is built into life. Also, and very importantly, given the current state of environmental degradation that is occurring, it is now more vital that ever that we develop more sustainable and intelligent technolgies to power our homes, feed our children, and defend our countries. So the siren call of a return to simpler ways is actually more dangerous now that it ever was. Thats my opinion anyway.

I think the society we live in doesn't necessarily call for more emphasis on the development of technology right now. I think people tend to get a little too impatient when it comes to innovative technology, and that they need to learn to let it take its own course. The more someone tries to manipulate technology the more they are going to waste their efforts and end up hurting themselves in the long run. We shouldn't be competing against one and another for technological advancement, rather slowing down and sharing the different types with one and another so that we can all benefit off the necessities in life.

Hamster wrote: I have to agree with G...

The only way we learn what is good or bad for us is to experiment, and with technology that can produce usually very good or very bad results. Contrast Hiroshima with Stem Cell research....one is good..the other not.

If we suddenly cease to develop new technolgy in my opinion society would stagnate and we would be no further forward as to what is "for our own good" or "ethically sound".

The only way forward is to "suck it and see" but we must have some regulation and boundaries in my opinion.


I understand that...

I would like to emphasize on the technology we have discovered being completely coincidence as well. So one has to wonder, what's being wasted, and what isn't?

Hamster wrote: Contrast Hiroshima with Stem Cell research....one is good..the other not.


But wasn't the one "on the way" to something - and couldn't the other be

on the way to something entirely different?

K.Snyder wrote: I think the society we live in doesn't necessarily call for more emphasis on the development of technology right now. I think people tend to get a little too impatient when it comes to innovative technology, and that they need to learn to let it take its own course. The more someone tries to manipulate technology the more they are going to waste their efforts and end up hurting themselves in the long run. We shouldn't be competing against one and another for technological advancement, rather slowing down and sharing the different types with one and another so that we can all benefit off the necessities in life.


Firstly may I point out that you are currently communicating with me using a very advanced computer using microchips that contain millions upon millions of pn-junction based transistors per sqaure centimeter, constructed by robots, linked to a world-wide communications network, operated via deep-ocean optical cables, radiowave signals, and low-earth-orbit geostationary satellites. Such things would appear as to be magic to any human being living 150 years ago, who mostly lived short hard lives, died in their millions from infectious diseases, and were lucky to see the other side of 45. Without those things we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion in the first place so theres my first point.

I also think your mixing up technology itself (which is neutral) with how it is deployed and used and the way we account for its consequences. A lot of what it wrong with modern life is not technology, but the choices we make with the possibilities it gives us. For example, T.V. is actually a fantastic technology, but its mostly used for peddling unecessary products that we don't (on the most part) need or titilating us with stories of vacuous non-entity "celebrities" whose life style we seem to want to emulate for whatever reason, so who is at fault there?, the T.V., the person making the content, or the person who watches it and pays for it to be the way it is?

Cars are obviously an excellent idea in that they provide people with personal mobility, but its not until relaitvely recently that we have begun to undertand what the real impact of having cars using internal combustion engines is, along with the failure to anticipate that people would use them as much as they do, the obvious answer to these problems is to develop cars that do not emit any or at least a lot less CO2 and pollution, as well as devoping other transport systems in places where cars are becoming impractical. The obvious "going back" solution would be to use horses, but people would have to completely change their lives, the economy of the country could not be maintained at anywhere like its current level, and of course if you had tens of millions of horses on the Island of britain and that would still have to feed somehow (they eat a lot btw) and clean up after them, and stable them and all that. When you look at what the actual reality of such ideas are, it quickly becomes clear they are not an option.

I'm not saying that technology is the be all and end all of everything, but it certainly is what makes the lives that we lead possible, and I certainly don't want to revert back to nature.

Galbally wrote:

I'm not saying that technology is the be all and end all of everything, but it certainly is what makes the lives that we lead possible, and I certainly don't want to revert back to nature.


I wouldn't either but we can all agree, with the exception of biological technological advancement, we wouldn't have begun to live our lives in such a way either, which wouldn't leave us nearly as vulnerable as we are if such advancement would cease to exist.

My point is that we tend to compete for more technological superiority to benefit our society as opposed in benefiting ourselves. I know that we are doing a lot in the field of health care, but if we as a society were to be as enthusiastic about finding cures to incurable viruses and cancer etc., we just may very well have found a cure or at least be on the brink of it, is that not a fair assumption? I'm all for technological advancement, but not at the expense of luxury as opposed to necessity.

I read a story about someone trying to sell his art painting, for 139 million dollars I think it was, who then accidentally punched a coin sized hole in it with his elbow, rendering it worthless(If it weren't to begin with -- with the exception of his passion of course, and appreciation). My question is, who is buying this stuff at hundreds of million dollars a pop? Sad in my eyes. If I had that kind of money, I most definitely would put it to good use that's for sure, and I know there are a lot more out there waisting money on this garb than just the person content on buying it that's for sure.

Hamster wrote: The whole point of the thread is has society reached its aims with technology?

I would have to say our aims are as evolving as our technological advances..I agree that what would have once seemed magical is now commonplace but how far does it go? With any society there will always be those on the fringe with radical views and plans for that tecbhnology.


People's aims are the same as they have always been, to have personal security for themeselves and their loved ones, to stay alive as long as possible, to have some sort of esteem and dignity, and to be as materially comfortable as their personal ideas allow. Thats what drives everything really, including technology.

K.Snyder wrote: I wouldn't either but we can all agree, with the exception of biological technological advancement, we wouldn't have begun to live our lives in such a way either, which wouldn't leave us nearly as vulnerable as we are if such advancement would cease to exist.

My point is that we tend to compete for more technological superiority to benefit our society as opposed in benefiting ourselves. I know that we are doing a lot in the field of health care, but if we as a society were to be as enthusiastic about finding cures to incurable viruses and cancer etc., we just may very well have found a cure or at least be on the brink of it, is that not a fair assumption? I'm all for technological advancement, but not at the expense of luxury as opposed to necessity.

I read a story about someone trying to sell his art painting, for 139 million dollars I think it was, who then accidentally punched a coin sized hole in it with his elbow, rendering it worthless(If it weren't to begin with -- with the exception of his passion of course, and appreciation). My question is, who is buying this stuff at hundreds of million dollars a pop? Sad in my eyes. If I had that kind of money, I most definitely would put it to good use that's for sure, and I know there are a lot more out there waisting money on this garb than just the person content on buying it that's for sure.


Yes, but to go back to your first point, we start from where we are right now, and go on from that point, not where we wish we were in some nostalgic view of past that we have never personally experienced. And you know what?, I have a feeling that life for indivdual human beings before there was any technology was not that good in the first place, if it was, why have so many thousands of generations of people tried to change their environment so much? I just don't but into this idea that there was some sort of lost paradise we came from that we should get back to, life has always been in general nasty, brutish, and short, and almost everything that people have done since they first evolved into modern humans has been an attempt to mitigate as best they could, the very harsh reality of nature and life in general.

Hamster wrote: Yes it is discovered really by trial and error mostly isn't it? Is that what you mean here K?


That...

And also looking at your rooftop to see lightning hit a metal rod that paves way to the light bulb, or sitting down with a chocolate bar only to have it melt in your front pocket to help revolutionize the 20th century with microwaves...

Galbally wrote: Yes, but to go back to your first point, we start from where we are right now, and go on from that point, not where we wish we were in some nostalgic view of past that we have never personally experienced. And you know what?, I have a feeling that life for indivdual human beings before there was any technology was not that good in the first place, if it was, why have so many thousands of generations of people tried to change their environment so much? I just don't but into this idea that there was some sort of lost paradise we came from that we should get back to, life has always been in general nasty, brutish, and short, and almost everything that people have done since they first evolved into modern humans has been an attempt to mitigate as best they could, the very harsh reality of nature and life in general.


I agree absolutely...

I just think that there is far too much emphasis on technological breakthrough aspired by greed. I don't even want to bring up fluoroscopes and other x-ray ideas that led to x-ray radiation poisoning. Absolutely too much in my opinion.

Hamster wrote: The whole point of the thread is has society reached its aims with technology?

I would have to say our aims are as evolving as our technological advances..I agree that what would have once seemed magical is now commonplace but how far does it go? With any society there will always be those on the fringe with radical views and plans for that tecbhnology.


I also think that on your point, which is a good one, society never reaches its aims, its always a work in progress, as people are born live and die, and then new people replace them. Society has ideals that it strives to attain, but there are no perfect solutions to anything in an imperfect world, technological or otheriwse. The difference between science and technology and all other human ideas about progress is that science and technology actually deliver measurable and material solutions to lifes problems, for example, if you want to go to America you book a ticket on a Boeing 747, you don't go round to a mosque and petition allah to get you there. If your child has an infection, you could try faith healing or you could get them to take a cheap course of anti-biotics, these things are actually miracles, but we take them for granted, we get dissafected because our lives are difficult and confusing, and then blame our tools for our own failure in not having a clear goal of what we want or why we do the things that we do. technology has undoubtledly made life more complex than it used to be, but its also made it more comfortable, longer, warmer, and safer (in general) than it used to be, our problem is that we seem unable to make the most of the freedom and opportunities it gives us both as indivduals and as societies.

Me, I studied science becuase its rewarding, and I find that trying to understand the amazing world we live in is very enjoyable. But, I'm also an ordinary person like everyone else and I understand that the answers to my questions and doubts about my own life won't be solved by either science or technology, or religion either come to that matter, you have to make your own peace with god and the world, but its always been that way, for everyone, its just that some people want a secure comfortable answer to life and their simply isn't one.

K.Snyder wrote: I agree absolutely...

I just think that there is far too much emphasis on technological breakthrough aspired by greed. I don't even want to bring up fluoroscopes and other x-ray ideas that led to x-ray radiation poisoning. Absolutely too much in my opinion.


I think what is crucial to this is that more than anything else, tehnology is an enabler of human decisions, and the more powerful the technology, then the greater the impact of indvidual human decisions becomes. So obviously, given human nature, technology does create a problem, as it facilitates and magnifies our own worst characteristics, as well as inspiring our best and most noble side. But whats the alternative?, human beings won't stop being nasty to each other if they put down their guns and bombs, it will just make the act of being nasty a more difficult process. The primary motivation of all people and all life is to stay alive as long as possible and/or reproduce to pass on their genes to the next generation, not to be close to nature and you are at nothing trying to persuade people to do the second if it involves sacraficing the first, and for most of the 6.5 billion people here, they don't have an option.

Now of course we do have rational minds and for the most part people are able to act in some way responsibly (thank god), but what technology primarily gives us is the power to act out our wishes, and with that power comes a responsibility to do so wisely. That is what is lacking in human beings, and thats not anything to do with technolgies, but is a product of our own failings.

Hamster wrote: Yes and here I once heard my friend describe the situation where a person gets into a car and drives so far he gets lost. They blame the car when in fact they had no road map or destination in mind...they just wanted to go further south...

In an effort to get there faster and with more comfort they got a better car with sat nav..Their eventual realisation was that they could have the best comfort, speed and computer generated help in the world but they were still bloody lost!

As you say..we get so worked over the car model and top speed we forget where we are going and why we even bought the car in the first place.


i agree, a very good analogy I think.

Hamster wrote: Aren't those aims you described just as subjective?? This certainly wouldn't fit in with all of my aims for technological advances should I have the chance to dictate that.


No, they are biological, if we really examine our motives we will usually find that these are the reasons we do what we do. But of course being self-aware and concious we can on occasion do things that are genuinly not in our own or our familys' best interests. That usually happens when we identify ourselves with an outside thing like a close friend who is not related to us, or a much bigger thing like our country, religion, even our planet. Sometimes that sort of impulse is a good thing, sometimes, not so good.

Hamster wrote: I don't agree that all our impulses/aims in life etc are bioloical in nature G...

Surely the whole point of being self aware is to have the ability to reach for higher spiritual aims and not be a slave to our bioloical thinking and goals...

A lot of the modern medical technology that has been developed (in my opinion) has been developed to counteract dis-eases caused be too many of us not thinking in a self aware way.

I have worked hard recently to listen to the more spiritual aims in my life and not to blindly follow biological aims just because me employer/friend/governmant/god or even planet tells me to. Of course listening and following the aims of the planet generally is for our highest good anyway in my opinion...I don't generally tend to identif with most people's aims in life..always been a bit of a loner there really.

Oh sorry if I am getting off topic again...:-5


Oh don't worry, I'm not a complete hard core science head that thinks everything is just DNA and instinct, but I do think that we are more motivated by our basic biology than we care to admit or think about, its not bad, we are creatures like everything else on earth. But I do accept that human beings are different, we have free will and conciusness, and those things are not fully explained by simple biology in my opinoin. But then some scientists disagree and they are clever people. Hmmmn.