Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Should we REALLY aim in technolgy's progress?

10 replies to this topic
Dr. John
  • Dr. John

    Despair Disco

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2011
  • India

#1

Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:45 PM

In many schools, there have been these debate topics like 'Technology: A Boon or Bane?' and all students have to take sides if it really is good for the humans or bad. I am taking this to a bigger level.

 

Basically, all we people hear in newspapers and advertisments are the new brands of mobile phones releasing every month or so. People who think it's best to be "updated" will opt for those phones at any cost. This is way of making business, I get it but instead of wasting your money on something expensive, why can't we use the same money for a "better purpose"?

 

People will say to me, "You idiot! How the hell are you even sharing your thoughts like this? It's the internet helping you!" I agree that internet is by far the most advanced inventions in this generation. I don't really say that we must avoid it; instead use this power to give awareness to evrybody in this world on what really this modern world has become.

 

Everyday, millions of automobiles drive on the roads emitting harmul gases; we all ahve learnt this crap from in your Science classes. Cars are surely very comfortable for travelling but we have been overusing them. How many people REALLY do car-pooling? Maybe 1 from 100 people? How many people try to avoid overusing the petrol which is rising every month without any stop? Really, this might sound as a lecture but we NEED to act.

 

Every year, some or the other resource is depleting at a very high rate. We waste more than we produce. We think it's best if we pay $100 dollars on some religious purpose than to give it for charity for a better cause. I am not trying to offend people who follow religion but why waste money on such useless things? Religion has taught man that serving a needy man is serving God. If we could give money to some charity which aims in healing a disease; we sure are trying to help many lives.

 

We keep progressing day by day. It's a good news but we are also overusing on materials like fossil fuels, land, water, etc. Human, though, is still NOT advanced that it can prepare all it's basic resources. We can't really depend on solar enery for our daily purposes. Even if we do, many peple can't afford it or don't know about it. That's another reason why we should educate EVERY human on this earth.

 

A country only develops when it's population develops. Technology has mostly supported entertainment and has caused people to divert their money on worthless things which they really don't enjoy in the end.

 

Man is greedy and ignorant. We can't do anything in him stopping all the ill he does to the society. For every 50% a man does good, he does 50% bad. He can't listen to all the warnings the scientists has said and not give a damn if some person is trying to destroy some forests and natural habits of animals which is keeping an ecological balance.

 

Only around 30% of the population really cares on these issues. While the others, well, they have to read their Facebook notifications on how African children are not getting drinking water. We have had enough of these new inventions; for now. We should take care on more severe matters like protecting the environment. If we act now, then we can heal this world and can still use our technologies.

 

We are the creators and destroyers of our reality.


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#2

Posted 20 January 2014 - 02:10 PM Edited by AceKingston, 20 January 2014 - 02:32 PM.

I actually made a topic about this but it got locked because somebody bumped it:

Actually my opinion has changed because of playing Fallout. Playing Fallout has made me understand that we have to advance in technology, the Fallout world is still stuck in the 50's-60's 'World of Tomorrow' concept. Computers that fit into a big room even in 2067, big cameras, 50's clothing, culture etc even in 2077. Can you imagine living in a world like that?

Sure we are advancing in technology a bit too fast but fact is, we are over-using natural resources, yes but due to our rapid advancement in technology we may actually find alternate resources.

I am not saying we should ignore all our natural resources but at the same time we need to advance in technology as well. There needs to be a balance of both but we will/may eventually run out of natural resources so we have to advance in technology.

Dr. John
  • Dr. John

    Despair Disco

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2011
  • India

#3

Posted 20 January 2014 - 02:38 PM

I actually made a topic about this but it got locked because somebody bumped it:

Actually my opinion has changed because of playing Fallout. Playing Fallout has made me understand that we have to advance in technology, the Fallout world is still stuck in the 50's-60's 'World of Tomorrow' concept. Computers that fit into a big room even in 2067, big cameras, 50's clothing, culture etc even in 2077. Can you imagine living in a world like that?

Sure we are advancing in technology but fact is, we are using natural resources, yes but due to our rapid advancement in technology we may actually find alternate resources.

I am not saying we should ignore all our natural resources but at the same time we need to advance in technology as well. There needs to be a balance of both but we will/mayeventually run out of natural resources so we have to advance in technology.

Do you think we can ever live in the past? No, because we are adapted to this world; the world where countless devices and machines have been created just for our comfort. 

 

If we try to live like the people from the Indus Valley Civilisation, it would be impossible. But people from that time WERE able to survive without computers, telephones, TV, etc. They had different means or ways of entertain themselves. They had the cure of diseases of those times. People had a basic language to speak, knowledge of designing buildings and models and many more. Some of those traditional ways are still being used in today's modern life as well. I would call them "healthy" as they don't disturb the life cycle of biosphere.

 

Industrial Revolution was the face of modern technology. Before that, everybody preached God's and other holy powers instead of working day night to earn money. People got money by doing odd jobs but they were limited to only the knowledge they had aquired from their predecessors. Industrial Revolution was a way to experiment on different ideas which made shape after 18th Century. Most inventions like Telephone, Camera, Computer, TV, etc came at the period 19th to 20th Century. All thanks to Industrial Revolution and great thinkers. The population also sky-rocketed after Industrial Revolution. Lower class people got enough money to build a family.

 

But unfortunately, man has gone crazy with these inventions and is just wasting resouces for his experiments which either fail or are risky.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#4

Posted 20 January 2014 - 02:42 PM Edited by Nale Dixon, 20 January 2014 - 02:42 PM.

I dunno man, sure living in the big bad streamlined world of technology is it's own slow death of the soul, but it sure beats dying of dysentery or plague on some Medieval crusade.  

  • Tyler, sivispacem and D4 Damager like this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#5

Posted 22 January 2014 - 08:34 PM

The largest problem with technology (and particularly in recent times with computers), is that we have integrated it into society far faster than good was.  A lot of people didn't know what they were doing or what significance their developments had.

 

I feel this is why this debate is particularly topical these days, because our reliance on technology is becoming ever more present and most of the technology we are using today is heavily flawed and not thoroughly thought through.  When someone decided to install a computer in a fridge they forgot to secure it against remote hacking, because they didn't think it was possible (but it turns out it is).

 

There is an old saying, 'if builders build buildings the way programmers program programs, civilisation would be destroyed by a single woodpecker'.  Governments are jumping on the idea to introduce electronic and internet voting, even though the systems are prone to error and could easily be manipulated in favour of some party.

 

But notice how IT is becoming a problem to the society we created because of technology?  Without agriculture, we would have no need for societies.

  • Dr. John and Osho like this

D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#6

Posted 22 January 2014 - 09:58 PM

OK. The answer to your question is yes, we should always aim to progress in technological terms. Progress is defined as a steady improvement or development or growth. This includes the refining of all of our previous inventions -- such as the car. And improvement is by definition never a bad thing.

 

I have decided that since I'm bored I'm going to go through your posts one by one. I have numbered your paragraphs to help both myself and anyone who wants to read this post. I haven't edited your posts in any other way -- aside from removing the opening paragraph of your first post because I didn't think it was really relevant. The reason why I'm doing this (apart from boredom) is because you're posts are confused. You have no idea what you are arguing from one paragraph to the next, and you are making very little sense.

 

1. Basically, all we people hear in newspapers and advertisments are the new brands of mobile phones releasing every month or so. People who think it's best to be "updated" will opt for those phones at any cost. This is way of making business, I get it but instead of wasting your money on something expensive, why can't we use the same money for a "better purpose"?

 

2. People will say to me, "You idiot! How the hell are you even sharing your thoughts like this? It's the internet helping you!" I agree that internet is by far the most advanced inventions in this generation. I don't really say that we must avoid it; instead use this power to give awareness to evrybody in this world on what really this modern world has become.

 

3. Everyday, millions of automobiles drive on the roads emitting harmul gases; we all ahve learnt this crap from in your Science classes. Cars are surely very comfortable for travelling but we have been overusing them. How many people REALLY do car-pooling? Maybe 1 from 100 people? How many people try to avoid overusing the petrol which is rising every month without any stop? Really, this might sound as a lecture but we NEED to act.

 

4. Every year, some or the other resource is depleting at a very high rate. We waste more than we produce. We think it's best if we pay $100 dollars on some religious purpose than to give it for charity for a better cause. I am not trying to offend people who follow religion but why waste money on such useless things? Religion has taught man that serving a needy man is serving God. If we could give money to some charity which aims in healing a disease; we sure are trying to help many lives.

 

5. We keep progressing day by day. It's a good news but we are also overusing on materials like fossil fuels, land, water, etc. Human, though, is still NOT advanced that it can prepare all it's basic resources. We can't really depend on solar enery for our daily purposes. Even if we do, many peple can't afford it or don't know about it. That's another reason why we should educate EVERY human on this earth.

 

6. A country only develops when it's population develops. Technology has mostly supported entertainment and has caused people to divert their money on worthless things which they really don't enjoy in the end.

 

7. Man is greedy and ignorant. We can't do anything in him stopping all the ill he does to the society. For every 50% a man does good, he does 50% bad. He can't listen to all the warnings the scientists has said and not give a damn if some person is trying to destroy some forests and natural habits of animals which is keeping an ecological balance.

 

8. Only around 30% of the population really cares on these issues. While the others, well, they have to read their Facebook notifications on how African children are not getting drinking water. We have had enough of these new inventions; for now. We should take care on more severe matters like protecting the environment. If we act now, then we can heal this world and can still use our technologies.

 

9. We are the creators and destroyers of our reality.

 

1. I understand your point, I think, that we should not be preoccupied with the newest technologies to the extent that we are. However what a patronising thing to say that there is a 'bad' way to spend your money and a 'good' way. By trying to place consumer choices on a moral spectrum you are appointing yourself as the moral judge by which we should all abide. That's not really a tenable position.

 

2. Again here you go with the evangelical stuff. You seem to think that technology has poisoned the world's consciousness and yet you presumably are aware of the irony of preaching the anti-technology way whilst using at least two modern systems to do so.

 

3. Yes cars pollute, however the pollution does not abide by a normal distribution. The vast majority of the pollution is caused by a small minority of cars. A good step would be to get those cars off of the road whilst improving engines and increasing the availability and effectiveness of electric cars. These steps are all being carried out.

 

4. 'I'm not trying to offend people but religion is useless and a waste of money.' Classic.

 

5. How do you think we will be able to develop new methods of powering our lives without new inventions? Education won't suddenly make solar power a viable alternative to coal in a country where it rains 75% of the time. In order to solve these challenges technological progress is a must.

 

6. Technology is just machinery and equipment. You have adopted a very narrow definition of it if you think that it is primarily focused on entertainment. You are mising out on the medical uses of technology, on vehicles, on tools that are being used right now to see what is going on in the centre of the Earth and in Space, on computers that are being used to help cure diseases and predict earthquakes, and on the many practical uses of the internet.

 

You are quite naive if you think that technological advances are primarily for the entertainment of the population; and you are quite naive if you think that phones, computers and other gadgets which you say are for 'entertainment' are worthless.

 

7. How nihilistic. And how general. I think you'll find that quite a lot of people are passionate about various causes and that the vast majority of the developed world has awoken to the problem of the depletion of resources. Aside from that I shan't bother with the rest of this paragraph as it's a crude generation with false statistics, and it would be a waste of my time to discuss it further...

 

8. Again the part with the false statistics doesn't make sense and is pretty much totally wrong -- so I'll leave that. And as for the second part: how do we combat all of these problems if we don't develop our existing technologies or create new ones? It is impossible for us to just stop developing technologies, and also 'heal this world' as you put it.

 

9. Poetic, but unnecessary.

 

1. Do you think we can ever live in the past? No, because we are adapted to this world; the world where countless devices and machines have been created just for our comfort. 

 

2. If we try to live like the people from the Indus Valley Civilisation, it would be impossible. But people from that time WERE able to survive without computers, telephones, TV, etc. They had different means or ways of entertain themselves. They had the cure of diseases of those times. People had a basic language to speak, knowledge of designing buildings and models and many more. Some of those traditional ways are still being used in today's modern life as well. I would call them "healthy" as they don't disturb the life cycle of biosphere.

 

3. Industrial Revolution was the face of modern technology. Before that, everybody preached God's and other holy powers instead of working day night to earn money. People got money by doing odd jobs but they were limited to only the knowledge they had aquired from their predecessors.

 

4. Industrial Revolution was a way to experiment on different ideas which made shape after 18th Century. Most inventions like Telephone, Camera, Computer, TV, etc came at the period 19th to 20th Century. All thanks to Industrial Revolution and great thinkers. The population also sky-rocketed after Industrial Revolution. Lower class people got enough money to build a family.

 

5. But unfortunately, man has gone crazy with these inventions and is just wasting resouces for his experiments which either fail or are risky.

 

I've split your third paragraph into two parts as it's a bit too long to take on all at once.

 

1. Speak for yourself. I would definitely prefer to live now over the 1950's because the internet means that I have access to an incredible amount of information at my fingertips. However if I were living back in the 1950's I would not have any problem doing without the internet, or computers, or mobile telephones.

 

2. We still have those means of entertainment. We can still read books, play boardgames and watch sporting events.

 

And at that time they didn't have the cures to many diseases which we have the cure to now. Since 1950 we have developed vaccines for Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, one cause of Cervical Cancer, Lyme disease and two types of Hepatitis.

 

And of course the 1950's wre a bad time for the environment. Cars still ran on lead based fuels and factories were polluting at a much greater level in the developed world than they are now.

 

3. That is not what the Industrial Revolution was about at all. Before the Revolution people worked predominantly on the land. The Revolution was the movement of people  into the cities and the growth of heavy industry. And there were opportunities for people to go into different jobs than their parents, through education or joining the armed forces or the priesthood. Greater social mobility came after the Industrial Revolution, but it is at best an indirect result of it.

 

4. You have completely bastardised the term Industrial Revolution here. The Industrial Revolution as a concept generally ends at around the beginning of the First World War. This is well before the invention of computers and before even the invention of TVs. Of course, I'm not including the numerous developments on existing models that you aren't taking in to account, such as smartphones, and the incredible advances in computer technology since 2000.

 

5. All new inventions are risky. Electricity was very dangerous after it was first discovered and marketed to the public, refrigerators used to cause massive explosions due to their use of dangerous gases. There are very few inventions that have been totally risk-free. The trick is learning from our failures and developing our ideas to maintain a constant state of progress and improvement.

 

You seem to be advocating just giving up on advancement and saying 'f*ck it, let's cure camcer with what we've got.' That is a silly and naive argument to make.

 

 


Dr. John
  • Dr. John

    Despair Disco

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2011
  • India

#7

Posted 23 January 2014 - 01:36 PM

@D4: My paragraphs are not connected as I have made then in a form of points as to what technology is and gave reasons as to how poor it has made this world. I know it's not accepted in written debates but this my first time taking up a serious debate so forgive me if my thoughts are confusing.

 

Here are some points I want to tell you which I felt needed some explaination.

 

Part 1:

 

1. I agree with your view on it. I can understand its worthless doing anything about it.

 

2. See, I told you that somebody will say that to me at least once. It could be only possible for me to post my debate on some internet forums because of internet; yes I get it. But aside from the internet (which I already said that it is the most advanced creations ever), we can look more on our surroundings which have more use of technology.

 

3. Yes and that's where technology should improve the car system from being a polluting factor to an eco friendly invention.

 

4. I really meant it. :p

 

5. Yes, but instead of going with the alternative sources of energy, we can try to minimize the use of current resources. Some countries have adopted policies against excessive use of non-renewable resources. We need to make it worldwide. We should use the alternative resources in future or beyond. Education can help people use these resources more carefully and also teach them new ways of reducing the wastage of resources.

 

6. Technology has many braches but unfortunately, we only spend mostly on entertainment. I maybe a naive person to judge on how technology has spoiled people but it sure has over-exceeded. People who didn't mobiles or even heard of it now have two. It's just too much.

 

7. Yes, the statistics are false and not checked but as for the fact that man is destroying habitats is not good for the nature. Technology has never co-existed with nature without some damage to each side. It is not a good thing if we continue to progress in technology.

 

8. Well, sorry for such "out of nowhere" assumptions from me. I didn't really mean those datas. They just showed a rough figures on the issue. As for the second part, no, we cannot go and improve our technology as it is one which is creating so many problems to the environment. We need to find another way of improving the current status; technology is not that way though.

 

9. Yeah, I just wanted to give a good ending to the post so it's irrelevant.

 

Part 2:

 

1. I never said that I would like to live the past. I also like this generation; only thing it's flawed. We need to improve what's on our hand.

 

2. Yeah but the amount of interests and such in people is minor considering watching movies or playing video games. We just took the hobbies into a different level.

 

As for the medecines, they at least didn't cause any over-population and the death ratio was equally fine which is a very good thing. If people kept on tackling diseases then the survival rate will increase causing more population and more resource usage. I might sound like a bad person but it's best if a person dies with an uncurable disease. I don't mean to offend any person in this world.

 

Earlier at that time, population was less and environment was healthy enough to sustain pollution (than now). I don't think they added the problems which we face now.

 

3. You being a cricket fan should know that Industrial Revolution played a vital role in improving cricket with introducting new gears and rules. I have not studied in depth about Industrial Revolution but from an overview, things flourised at that era.

 

4. Industrial Revolution only ended in few countries. In many countries, development was not rapid (like in India) and theya re still growning year by year. Countries like USA and UK took the most of the advantage from this act.

 

5. Yes but we need more knowledge. People had done countless experiments and then made some stable results. They had ample of resources to conduct those experiments; we don't. That's why our priority must be to conserve nature and its gifts.

 

this topic is really weak to begin with. Only a few people will ever support for this arguement while others will not as they have been hypnotized by the new world. I am not naive, I am just the minority.

 

Anyways, I liked your detailed rewiet on my ideas and will take some notes on imrpoving my way of presenting an aruguement. :)

 

I dunno man, sure living in the big bad streamlined world of technology is it's own slow death of the soul, but it sure beats dying of dysentery or plague on some Medieval crusade.  

I understand where you are coming from. I don't mind on your way of thinking on this problem; its subjective after all. :D


D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#8

Posted 26 January 2014 - 10:49 AM

2. See, I told you that somebody will say that to me at least once. It could be only possible for me to post my debate on some internet forums because of internet; yes I get it. But aside from the internet (which I already said that it is the most advanced creations ever), we can look more on our surroundings which have more use of technology.

 

5. Yes, but instead of going with the alternative sources of energy, we can try to minimize the use of current resources. Some countries have adopted policies against excessive use of non-renewable resources. We need to make it worldwide. We should use the alternative resources in future or beyond. Education can help people use these resources more carefully and also teach them new ways of reducing the wastage of resources.

 

6. Technology has many braches but unfortunately, we only spend mostly on entertainment. I maybe a naive person to judge on how technology has spoiled people but it sure has over-exceeded. People who didn't mobiles or even heard of it now have two. It's just too much.

 

7. Yes, the statistics are false and not checked but as for the fact that man is destroying habitats is not good for the nature. Technology has never co-existed with nature without some damage to each side. It is not a good thing if we continue to progress in technology.

 

8. Well, sorry for such "out of nowhere" assumptions from me. I didn't really mean those datas. They just showed a rough figures on the issue. As for the second part, no, we cannot go and improve our technology as it is one which is creating so many problems to the environment. We need to find another way of improving the current status; technology is not that way though.


Part 2:

 

1. I never said that I would like to live the past. I also like this generation; only thing it's flawed. We need to improve what's on our hand.

 

2. As for the medecines, they at least didn't cause any over-population and the death ratio was equally fine which is a very good thing. If people kept on tackling diseases then the survival rate will increase causing more population and more resource usage. I might sound like a bad person but it's best if a person dies with an uncurable disease. I don't mean to offend any person in this world.

 

Earlier at that time, population was less and environment was healthy enough to sustain pollution (than now). I don't think they added the problems which we face now.

 

3. You being a cricket fan should know that Industrial Revolution played a vital role in improving cricket with introducting new gears and rules. I have not studied in depth about Industrial Revolution but from an overview, things flourised at that era.

 

4. Industrial Revolution only ended in few countries. In many countries, development was not rapid (like in India) and theya re still growning year by year. Countries like USA and UK took the most of the advantage from this act.

 

5. Yes but we need more knowledge. People had done countless experiments and then made some stable results. They had ample of resources to conduct those experiments; we don't. That's why our priority must be to conserve nature and its gifts.

 

6. this topic is really weak to begin with. Only a few people will ever support for this arguement while others will not as they have been hypnotized by the new world. I am not naive, I am just the minority.

 

Anyways, I liked your detailed rewiet on my ideas and will take some notes on imrpoving my way of presenting an aruguement. :)

 

OK. I've deleted the stuff that I don't feel I need to respond to from the quoted post. So I'll go again...

 

2. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please explain it to me?

 

5. You cannot limit the use of non-renewable resources without having a new energy source to step into the gap. Economies would grind to a halt. I'm not denying that education should play a part, and that we should aim to conserve non-renewable resources. What I am saying is that it is naive to assume that we are able to just stop using up resources.

 

6. Are you saying that the internet is just solely for entertainment? Or computers? And your mobile phone argument made me laugh a little. Mobile phones are not primarily provided to us as a means of entertainment; mobile phones are for talking to other people, whether that is by text message, email, or just by calling them up the old-fashioned way. If you take those functions away from mobile phones, they are useless, no matter how many "entertaining" features they have as extras...

 

7. When you say "technology" has never coexisted with nature, I think you mean mankind in general. We've been using technology to kill other people, and to hunt animals to extinction, since well before the Industrial Revolution. The only difference now is that we are more aware of the damage that we are doing -- and technology is the reason for that so it could be argued that actually technology is helping us to conserve other species and their habitats. And a progression in technological terms is absolutely necessary for that trend to continue.

 

8. They didn't show "rough figures" on any issue. They were pure nonsense. Unsupported statistics do not advance any arguments.

 

And the current situation is precisely why we need to develop our existing technologies. If inventors would've listened to people like yourself in the early 20th century we would still face incredible dangers from things like exploding fridges. It is neither sensible, nor realistically possible to argue for the complete stopping of all development, because it would doom us to stay in exactly the same place, developmentally, as we are in now.

 

------

 

1. Yes, we need to improve. See my above paragraph for the economic reason why it can't be done without technological development.

 

2. That's a silly and naive thing to say. As Nale Dixon (sort of) said, it's much better to live in a world where every scratch on the knee doesn't have to equal certain death, which would be the result if your view was taken to its extreme. You condemn this generation for keeping people alive, but then praise the Industrial Revolution for doing exactly the same thing.

 

And of course they helped to add the problems that we face now. They were pumping incredibly dangerous stuff into the air that nowadays we wouldn't dream of putting up there. Pollution in big cities in the West was infinitely worse 50 years ago, and worse than that 100 years ago.

 

3. I, as a cricket fan, know that this entire paragraph is nonsense. The Industrial Revolution had no impact on the laws of cricket or its equipment. People didn't start wearing pads because of the increased birth rate or the increased social mobility of the era -- people started wearing pads because it hurts to get hit on the shin by a hard ball moving at 80+ m/h. But this is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, so please if you respond to this post, do not respond to this bit.

 

4. It does not matter whether or not there's an Industrial Revolution going on in India, when both TVs and computers were not invented there. They were invented in the West at a time when the Industrial Revolution had finished there. Thus my point still stands: they were not invented during the Industrial Revolution.

 

And most countries experience some GDP growth each year. In fact, 177 countries did so last year. India ranks 104th on that list -- not a 'Revolution by any means.

 

5. They did not do tests to get stable results, which is precisely why the technology was so dangerous! Nowadays we are much more careful when it comes to the invention and testing of new products, due to better consumer protection laws.

 

6. The reason why this topic is "weak" is because your argument is "weak". You openly admit that you aren't connecting your paragraphs, which leads to you then going off on several tangents about cricket and religion and other stuff.

 

And you are both naive and in a minority. In fact, you are in said minority precisely because of your naivete. You are naive because you are showing a lack of forethought and wisdom in your responses. You have not supported your points with anything approaching evidence.

 

And I can only speak for myself, but I have not been hypnotised by anything or anyone (in fact, the suggestion is quite insulting). I just happen to have the ability to recognise deluded rambling when I see it.

  • Ari Gold likes this

Xboxless
  • Xboxless

    Gangsta

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2007
  • United-States

#9

Posted 04 June 2014 - 03:27 PM Edited by Xboxless, 04 June 2014 - 03:35 PM.

Yes we should aim in the development in technology. Yes, it's a two-edged sword but that is exactly why this kind of tech development needs to be open knowledge so the layman can understand. Look at TED.com, or Michio Kaku's book "Future of the Mind." They are open portals into the future of technology in all it's sometimes ethically questionable glory. But, a lot of these technologies can do real good or make someone rich (and if they are anything like Bill Gates they will donate a lot of that to charities).

 

It's all about trying to optimize what we are already doing into the most efficient way possible. I watched a TED vid on how entire communities livelihoods in Africa come down to burning electronic waste for it's gold. Now, using technology one could find a way to better optimize that practice not only for ecological benefit but the inustries benefit as well.

 

I have seen a myriad of ways to create wind energy. Theres a new thing out that funnels the wind into a windsock basically and treats it almost like a jet. It increases the wind speed whilst lowering pressure so that you get even more efficiency out of it. So even in a relatively low wind speed you can still get some wind energy.

 

Yes, some of technologies potential is VERY scary (say for example with synthesized life, one could reverse engineer a zombie using neuroscience (has been done actually) and then try and create using our knowledge of genetics to create a zombie viruss, or they could use it to create more efficient phagocytes). It all comes down to who has the technology and their basic moral code, but this is why I like to know about it to make sure it's being used in an ethically beneficial way. 

 

I dunno, this is all kind of mumble but meh.

 

Basically, my point is learn about it so that you can have a voice in it's development and use. Yes, a good portion of high tech is going to be used for entertainment purposes only, but that same tech will be used to further mankinds progress. Here take a look at this:http://www.ted.com/t...hybrid_thinking

 

His example for what to use the cloud neo-cortex is entirely stupid, and a waste of that technology, but say for example one has instant internet access and this cortex cloud one could have a question about a technology, and very quickly have all that info shoved inside their head and then with their added brain power could make connections and come up with new innovative ideas much easier. It's like an exponential growth in brain power.

  • Ari Gold likes this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Traum - Tagtraum - Am Fenster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#10

Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:05 PM

I'm not sure if this entirely relates, but I had a thought kinda like that the other day with cell phones. Look at back in the 1980s, how big they are. Now look at then over the years at how small they've become. I was at Walmart the other day and they were selling cell phones that didn't even fit in your damn pocket, so I'm guessing that big cell phones are on the rise again. That being said, cell phones will constantly get bigger/smaller every few years or so, kinda like a sea saw.

Eris
  • Eris

    Ghetto Star

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#11

Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:12 PM

Thanks for totally missing the point of the topic

 

OT: Ask a peasant from the 8th century. He would kill to live in today's technological world. 

  • Ari Gold likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users