A prudent society would put technology on hold

[coberst]

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?

[Zythryn]

I think this could have been argued when the first cave man used a femur of a dead animal as a club.

 

I do agree that mankind needs to grow up. However, I don't believe stopping technilogical growth would be good for mankind. Much the opposite, I think it would cause harm and allow society to fall into disarray.

[pgrmdave]

Don't confuse the tools with the users.

[alxian]

it sickens me when i read such opinions

 

where has technology taken the human race so far?

 

even with all the poisons and nukes and guns we've developed.. Humanity is still here. there have been no species wide genocides. there is no point. you can't destroy any large part of humanity without killing yourself and your way of life in the process.

 

yes we've been on the brink of something like that for millenia, but technology has little to do with it. warring nations don't care what tools are used to kill (they do maintain a concensus that nukes are taboo but for how much longer? once a lone entity can create a nuke who's to say he won't use it against his own people?).

 

thanks to technology we live longer, we're on average smarter and more connected and our lives are easier.

 

technology when moderated intentionally by responsible govenrments only helps societies to grow. men are not stupid enough to kill each other on the scale of nations for nothing at all.. and when even that lapses the rest of humanity is wisened by such actions.

 

this technophobia is ridiculous and dangerous.

 

i imagine you'd have all scientists and researchers publicably burned right? along with all the research and fruits of their labour since the industrial revolution right?

 

--

 

as for stem cell research in particular

 

man kind needs to not just grow up.. but to evolve and further adapt to the world around us. not just our crops and healing our bodies but changing our bodies into something new.

 

modifying our genetics like plastic surgery allows people to alter theirs bodies superficially will lead to some interesting and fundamental changes in our genetics as a species. possibly creating new sub branches of Homo Sapiens.

 

not taking this step is i think evil. we should use all the tools at our disposal to grow and prosper.

[stamarama]

I think the development of technology has far outstripped the development of values, and the imbalance is causing all sorts of sturm and drang. It's one thing to have advanced technologies, but quite understand their implications and make wise use of them. I've often thought that a moratorium on technological development would be a good thing, maybe for five or ten years. No new stuff. Let mankind "grok" all the advancements in the last 50 (even 10) years and catch it's breath. Maybe have more time to think and reflect, maybe focus on the sorts of advancements we really need (I vote for finding better techniques for harnessing cheap and renewable energy, and continuing the search for inhabited planets). Sort of take stock. The inventions aren't going anywhere, the discoveries will still be there to be discovered after we've had our time out. But maybe we'll all be a tiny bit more relaxed. Can I get a chorus of "Fat Chance!" on this?

[CraigD]

The inventions aren't going anywhere [in 5 or 10 years], the discoveries will still be there to be discovered after we've had our time out.

While ideas may be immortal, scientists and technologists are not. A state-mandated moratorium would be tantamount to the forced retirement of a generation of career scientists and technologists, particularly in academic careers, where a person as young as 50 may be perceived as too old for many long-term leadership positions.

 

Speaking for myself, I would be very reluctant to remain in any state that mandated such a policy.

Can I get a chorus of "Fat Chance!" on this?

Most emphatically!

[stamarama]

I'm not saying scientists and technologists are immoral (no more than any other profession, and better than many), or that science and technology is bad, I'm just making the point that society's progress in terms of moral, cultural, and philosophical development has not kept pace with technological development and we are, as a result, out of whack.We advancing technologically, but culturally in retrograde motion. Nor did I advocate a "state mandated moratorium". What I have in mind is more like a sabatical. Besides, my suggestion that we take a technology break was more of a personal musing than an advocacy for state intervention. What the governing bodies could do, instead of raising red flags of alarm that our schools are falling short in math and the science, is to honor the study of history, philosophy, and theology, along with science, the better for students to get some perspective on the world as it is, and to become wiser citizens and leaders. Those that wished to stricly pursue technology and pure science would continue to do so. Society needs science, but it needs the other stuff too.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Wow... never have I heard such a notion. You're (coberst) suggesting that we should completely stop all moves toward technological advancement in our society? That’s absurd:eek: . If we did something like that mankind would never survive much longer (no specific time mentioned). I do agree however that ethics, philosophy, and history are sadly neglected in our country's schooling.

I speak out of direct experience being a high school sophomore myself that I would love to see much more ethics (and not business ethics which is completely useless) and philosophy taught in our schools. We (my school) have one philosophy class that lasts 1 semester and consists of worksheets and videos taught by an incompetent teacher. I grieve for my generation for it will be one of the least educated since the Stone Age. And when I state educated I mean not all the math and science and grammar. Children and even adults nowadays are not ethical and NONE consider both short and long-term possibilities.

And I suppose coberst may have some point in that power is useless when given to a strong fool rather then a weak genius. We (humankind) have made more technological advancements in the past century then ever before. And yet none of that has seemed to have been extremely beneficial to us because morons with flawed ethics have presented us from exploiting our technology to the fullest. You want to know what the difference between the real world and those Sid Meier Civilization games you play? The people in the video game aren’t a bunch of deluded philosophists with the notion that what happens now is more important then the future. :doh: (Horrible analogy I know)

What holds human kind back now is a lack of reason and forethought.

Stem Cell research as mentioned by coberst is a veeeery controversial subject that delves into philosophy, religion, and psychology. The first question we should ask ourselves is by using stem cells from the embryo of an unborn child are we killing a living thing. In my opinion we are doing no more so then slaughtering cows for McDonald’s cheeseburgers with the exception that the latter is done on an infinitely larger scale with absolutely NO CONTROVERSY. You don’t hear people yelling in the streets about cows being killed for meat or pigs being slaughtered for the bacon you had at breakfast. You don’t see headlines in magazines saying "Cow slaughter. Is it ethical?"

Animals are vastly more intelligent then a group of cells that are completely devoid of any capable intelligence. They feel pain, stem cells don’t, they have fear and joy and emotion, stem cells don’t. And yet God knows WHY people find it reasonable that sacrificing a small group of insignificant, unthinking, unfeeling cells is SOOO more important then painfully murdering an animal. It boggles my mind. These are the kinds of idiocy that our society cooks up. :)

Even if SOMEHOW stem cells had souls, does anyone here other than me think that sacrificing this so called soul for the sake of a person's health or even life is worth it? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Please.

So what I guess this long and undulating post is boiling down to is it is not the fault of our advanced technology but the neglect of society to properly teach correct thinking styles and ethics.

Do I think we should work more on exploiting our technology? Yes.

Do I think it is the fault of idiots that people must live paralyzed just because a bunch of fanatics say stem cells are people? Yes.

Do I think the problem can be easily solved? :)

However the problem can be solved. If people would open their eyes to more then just their religion, they would understand the drive that motivates others to exploit our technology for the good of mankind!

Now my head is bothering me again and my seminar teacher is yelling at me so I must end this.

Open your eyes,

IMAMONKEY!

[TheFaithfulStone]

A state-mandated moratorium would be tantamount to the forced retirement of a generation of career scientists and technologists, particularly in academic careers, where a person as young as 50 may be perceived as too old for many long-term leadership positions.

 

Didn't they kinda already try this in China during the "Cultural Revolution" And didn't like half a million people die?

 

TFS

[IMAMONKEY!]

Didn't they kinda already try this in China during the "Cultural Revolution" And didn't like half a million people die?

 

TFS

 

Yes they did try this in China. And yes about half a million people died. Which is why it should never happen again.

[IDMclean]

I'm just making the point that society's progress in terms of moral, cultural, and philosophical development has not kept pace with technological development and we are, as a result, out of whack.

 

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.

 

These claims are extrordinary, and therefore it would follow that they require extrordinary evidence.

 

Beyond simply that, lets talk definitions, so that we have a common basis of communication from which to debate. By technology I am assuming you mean:

 

Technology is a word with origins in the Greek word technologia (τεχνολογία), techne (τέχνη) "craft" and logia (λογία) "saying." It is a broad term dealing with the use and knowledge of humanity's tools and crafts.

 

Science, engineering and technology

 

The distinctions between science, engineering and technology are not always clear. Generally, science is the reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at discovering enduring relationships (principles) among elements of the (phenomenal) world. It generally employs formal techniques, i.e., some set of established rules of procedure, such as the scientific method. Engineering is the use of scientific principles to achieve a planned result. However, technology broadly involves the use and application of knowledge (e.g., scientific, engineering, mathematical, language, and historical), both formally and informally, to achieve some "practical" result (Roussel, et al.).

 

For example, science might study the flow of electrons in electrical conductors. This knowledge may then be used by engineers to create artifacts, such as semiconductors, computers, and other forms of advanced technology. In this sense, scientists and engineers may both be considered technologists, but scientists generally less so.

 

Usage

 

Science/scientist is used as a general term and refers to the subject and researchers of a new product or item of science, eg. "Scientists invented this" (not "engineers invented this"), or "Science is to be thanked for this" (not "technology is to be thanked for this")

 

Engineer/engineering is used commonly to refer to those who maintain an item of science or people furthering the orignal product of science, eg. "The engineers operate those machines" (not usually "the scientists operate those machines")

 

Technology is more vague, but usually is an actual item, and something that can be used, and is available to be used. Technology is generally not a reference to a discovery like a theorem for maths, which people don't use in the general sense, eg. I like using this new technology (not "I like using this new science")

 

tech‧nol‧o‧gy  /tɛkˈnɒlədʒi/ [tek-nol-uh-jee]

–noun

1. the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

2. the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature.

3. a technological process, invention, method, or the like.

4. the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.

 

So to me this raises a less than obvious question for the claims put forth. Is not ethics a branch of technology? Is not education a branch of technology?

 

Would it not then be prudent for our society to focus on the branches of technology that are falling behind, and perhaps create a mandate that encourages growth of those technologies rather than some absurdly concieved fascist mandate against the development of new technologies?

 

In my person experience the more I know the better I become as an individual. The more I can do, and the greater the quality of my efforts. This is thanks to technology.

 

Furthermore, it strikes me that we cannot take a step back. We know the truth and are committed to what we know. Even if we destroy the archives and clear the information from the world, the ideas still remain, and the people who remember still remain.

 

As a last thought, it is noted in the premise of this thread, by some, that the world is "out of whack". Though I acknowledge that we are not in an ideal state, I do not believe that we ever have been before. Nor do I believe that getting rid of technology, or putting it on hold would somehow magically put us into whack, whatever that maybe.

 

-Today is better than yesterday, and tomorrow promises to be better still. Such is the aim of progress.

Mr. Clown of the Secular Technocratic Anarchistic Socialistic Humanism School

[coberst]

Kickass

 

The aim of technology is to produce a means for transportation that is faster than the horse. The aim is satisfied with the invention of the automobile. The auto must have fuel, the fuel is oil, the production of fuel creates great problems for the ecosystem, the auto creates great problems and the solution is to make more roads that in turn create great problems. The single minded need was satisfied by the auto but one can see evidence that the auto may lead to the death of the planet.

 

Of course, a careful analysis would necessarily be made before any drastic action was taken. This is a call for discussion and consideration and is not a call for throwing some switch.

[TheBigDog]

A prudent society would be properly outraged at the danger of such a pinheaded suggestion. Go join the Amish.

 

Bill

[cwes99_03]

BD, you must agree that not all technology is good for mankind.

This sounds like the debate of Frankenstein. Just because you have the ability to do something (create or use something) does it mean you should?

 

What is science without ethics?

 

Has technology growth over the past 20 years created financial hardship on the middle class. Before the middle class was the place to be, now you have to get all this technology to keep things moving along, so you can earn more money to try and keep up with the rich who can afford anything. In the meantime, use of some of the technology is destroying the environment, the family, etc. Would it not be overall beneficial to do more research and testing before flinging it into the marketplace to make a quick buck.

[Zythryn]

Has technology growth over the past 20 years created financial hardship on the middle class.

 

No.

The damage to the middle class is due to economics, not goods created with technology. The 'must keep up with the neighbors' idea is more cultural than anything. So even if people feel they are 'forced' to keep up by buying expensive toys, it is a cultural issue not a technological one.

 

The do agree that the destructive ability of humanity has grown faster than our collective wisdom and that is dangerous. However, I disagree that stopping discoveries, even if it were possible to do so, is the way to correct the issue.

[coberst]

A prudent society would be properly outraged at the danger of such a pinheaded suggestion. Go join the Amish.

 

Bill

 

Hey Big Dog, don't be shy, say what you mean.

[IDMclean]

The middle class I would like to point out is an artificial construct, due to progressive manuevering of our economic systems. That is they exist(ed?) because there have been economic policies put in place in the recent past which encouraged the growth of a bridge between the extreames.

 

In the past 40-50 years reforms, tax cuts, and other such things which have been pushed out politically as being for the poor and middle class have severely limited the ability for such a class to exist within our classist society.

 

the destruction of the middle class is not exclusive to republicans, it is perpitrated equally by the democrats. It's a tag team effort. The republicans cut taxes for the rich, spend more on the military, and cut the social program budgets. The democrats reform the social programs. Don't believe me, examine it yourself.

 

So once again, I would say that the basis of the arguement is one of false cause. Of course prez. Ronald "Raygun" Reagan is a fish. Your arguement is based on a false cause. I would advise that perhaps you take a deeper look into the questions you are asking yourself. Examine them publicly, and try to look it with it's complexity intact.