A prudent society would put technology on hold

[cwes99_03]

I'm not debating the political existence, or anything along those lines KAC.

 

What I am pointing towards is

1) different economic levels exist (those who can't (or barely can) afford the necessities, those who can plus a little on the side, and those who can afford more than what is necessary) you can't deny these exist with many varying degrees.

2) new technology is being marketed by companies (owned and run by people in the third category) to consumers and businesses alike.

3) as new technology comes out is automatically adopted by the people who force the rest of the world to keep up. Big businesses (even those that you might not think of like a farmer who farms 10,000 acres or has 12,000 head of cattle) easily adopt whatever new technology they want. The new technology gives them a lead and they grow their business. If the smaller ones want to keep up they have to shell out the big bucks for the new tech (often meaning they can't pay off their business loans as quickly, thus meaning it costs them even more because of their finance charges).

4) new tech in the business world often becomes new tech in the home. New cell phones are constantly coming out. Why? In some cases because the business world demands it (blackberry) and in other cases because of planned obsolescence. My first cell phone (purchased 3 years ago) only lasted me 2 years and cost me $50. My latest cell phone likewise will probably only last 2 years and did cost me $50, but it had all this extra gagetry that I don't need. Could I buy a low end version that didn't have all those bells and whistles? Nope. That was their lowest end version, but if I want a cell phone (as it turns out I need one for business reasons) I have to pay $50 every 2 years just to keep one in my pocket. Ten years ago I wouldn't have had to do that. That happens every day with all kinds of different devices. Some we can live without, but most of those are still mandated by marketing and others who identify you by what you have and what they "believe" you need.

 

Take for instance a medium sized farm (which btw has been growing larger and larger for the past 100 years as technology has changed). My dad farms about 1300 acres (of which he cash rents almost all of it.) 20 years ago he was getting some of the highest yields in the county with fields producing 160-180 bushels per acre. Now he is sometimes getting the highest yields in the county at 230 bushels per acre.

If he didn't keep up with the technology, he wouldn't be able to afford the land he rents. Why? Because higher yields the nation over has driven down the value of a bushel of corn. If he were still growing 160-180 bpa then he would be earning less than he did 20 years ago. The new seed tech costs a lot more than it did 20 years ago (with adjusted inflation being considered) so he still makes less off of an acre of land today than he did 20 years ago. Add into that consideration the new equipment and technology he had to buy to grow his business to 1300 acres from 500 acres just so he could continue putting the necessities of food on the table and pay his mortgage, and he actually went down in "status" from middle class to lower-middle class because of technological advances.

Add into that the effect that the new tech has had on the environment, and it isn't so hard to demonize some of the new tech being pushed on the everyday person, for the sake of having new technology.

 

What is all of this really tied to? Someone always having to be the bigger better earner. Again it recycles to greed and domination.

[IDMclean]

The response I will give to your assertions is simply, Mu.

 

What I mean is that you are making an arguement based on false, limited and/or negligent premises, and assumptions.

 

So my response, Mu, means neither yes nor no, but that your question itself is wrong and/or irrelevant.

 

What I am saying is that you neglect the poltical influences and other circumstances surrounding the issue. Tools are something one uses to accomplish a goal of some sort. A tool is neither a good or a bad thing, it is neither right nor wrong, but simply a tool. It is the intent behind it, the purpose of the tool and the use of the tool which requires examination.

 

Technology, then in my opinion is not to blame for our issues. That is projective of the frustrations felt and is the formulation of a proposition based on false cause.

 

Perhaps if some depth were added, and the causes examined, to the proposition, I might consider it more vigorously. Until then all I can say is, Mu.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The realities of farming.

 

Yeah, capitalism sucks, but your argument is about economics, not technology. Planned obsolescence is not a feature of cell phones, it's a feature of cell phone COMPANIES.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

I agree. KAC and TFS have both accepted what I said is the problem. I thought in my reading of earlier posts that this thread wasn't about whether technology was the issue, but whether the thrust of new technology every second was the issue. I simply demonstrated how thrusting new technology constantly on the world caused some problems (and not just in the farming community.)

Why is planned obsolescence a problem? Because as new technology becomes available, old technology gets dropped. It becomes unavailable.

 

Such as the move to HD TV (which admittedly is taking much longer than politicians had hoped for). Years ago a bill was signed to force all companies to broadcast in HD and all providers to eventually drop any non-HD signal. This meant that anyone who still received their TV signal over the air for free would eventually have to buy new technology to continue watching TV. But it also meant that the broadcasters had to adopt tons of new cost. With the adoption of these new costs, many would have to stop making their broadcast available for free (or seriously hike up their commercial prices, which would not work since they would sell a lot less commercials.)

I believe in the last year or two some politicians realized this problem and extended the earlier act which called for completion by 2007 and extended it another 5-10 years or something like that.

[InfiniteNow]

Isn't it technology itself which allows us to put things on hold? :hihi:

[coberst]

Isn't it technology itself which allows us to put things on hold? :hihi:

 

I don't comprehend that.

[cwes99_03]

Isn't it technology itself which allows us to put things on hold? :hihi:

If you are saying that the level of technology we currently have allows us to survive/thrive without further changes to our technology then yes.

But I have a feeling you were smirking when you typed that, so touche.

 

ll = Pause

[TheBigDog]

Limiting technology puts a moratorium on creative thought. I will not take part in a society that disallows my ability to make improvements for myself and my children over what previous generations had to live with. I do not see technology as bad. I see the fast progression of technology as the most exciting time in history to have lived. And while keeping up with technology brings different challenges, it relieves far more hardship than it brings on.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

If I may play devil’s advocate…

 

Imagine that I, in the secrecy of my private underground lab, discover a theory of everything. I build a device using materials and techniques available to any university science department, which allows me to confirm various predictions of my theory. One such prediction, however, is that fundamental TOE-stuff can be nudged is a particular way using the device that causes the entire Earth to rapidly contract into something super-dense, coincidentally killing every living thing on it. Obviously, I don’t test that that prediction.

 

Having found and tested a TOE, something that a generation of physicists has failed to do, I naturally would like to publish my work and enjoy accolades. I reason, however, that in doing so, hundreds, perhaps thousands of people will be able to see how the theory can be used to destroy all life on Earth. Since that’s an outcome assigned an effectively negative infinite value by any sensible risk assessment, even a very small probability that anyone would actually do so leads me to conclude that I should not publish, and should assure that no one duplicates my theory.

 

Therefore, I am compelled to undertake the systematic stalking and killing of anyone with the mathematical physics background necessary to understand the theory…

 

I suspect I’ve speculated about a physical impossibility, but until I have a TOE and can confirm that it makes no such prediction, can I be sure?

 

Argh! Devil’s advocacy so often leads one to feel silly.

[IDMclean]

I do see that danger, but I find it irrational. Obviously a person who has the ability to comprehend such a thing is more than likely going to have the capable to take proper procations. Any body of rational individuals would take the time effort and understanding nessessary to weigh out and predict the outcomes before even undertaking such an action.

 

Now if we are talking about something so simple that an 8 year old can comprehend, and perform this. Then you are talking real danger. At current I would expect that to be highly unlikely.

 

There is risks involved with progress but mainly they are blown out of purportion. Still what we are talking about is not technology itself, but the way and intent it is used with. The responsibility inherent with concieving, designing, developing, and using technology. Technology literally is the means to power, and with great power of course comes great responsibility, less we meet fatal end.

 

We need not worry ourselves back into the stone age just because on an off chance we might suddenly drop dead. The probability of which is extreamely low.

 

I do not argue against the need to learn normative ethics, and maintaining stringent planning, and simulation, nor do I argue against ever increasing advances in education and our understanding of our powers and responsibilities.

 

Don't worry, I won't even point out that your arguement is based on the fallacy of either parade of the horribles or slippery slope. I am not sure which exactly.

[coberst]

Craig

 

No, you are not being silly. My post was made in the hopes that people would begin to seriously examine the problem of our hands-off attitude toward technology. Many people think that technology is synonymous with progress; I think such thinking is dangerous.

[coberst]

Kickass

 

It appears to me that you consider technology to synonymous with progress; this, I consider, to be a dangerous attitude. I would like people to stand back and take a more judicious view of this matter.

[IDMclean]

Would you like an analysis of technology? Is that what you are wishing for. Cause I can tell you that I have already been through the verification process many times over regarding technology, religion, science, philosophy, government and a myriad of other subjects.

 

Currently Technology is the least of my worries. It's a tool. The very fact that we communicate over the internet makes this whole discussion ironic. The fact that we are objective and educated and capable of dissecting this issue, that is technology and makes it all the more ironic.

 

Life has improved, our ability to produce has improved, our ability to function as whole integrated individuals has improved. Much of it due to innovation in two areas. One is technology, but it's cause is the more important part. I am testiment to that, not that I'm bragging but I have been told by many people, who have commented on my person and character. My mother raised me well. That is the more important improvement. Child rearing practices. Morality. Ethics. These are technologies and there are many ways to go about them and the wrong way in my estimation/dissection is one of moral relativism. just because they have traditionally beat children world wide, committed societially acceptable violence against new humans, does not make these things right. ever anywhere (Equivalence Principle applies to more than just General Relativity or Physics.)

 

It is technology that has improved our standard of living, and therefore the standard by which we raise children and therefore the standard by which future technology is developed.

 

I am saying that the question of should we return to an earlier age, is a fallacious question. Yes, Technology is the means, not the end. Yes, it's an effect. We are it's cause. Our needs are our motivation to develop these technologies.

 

Now as to the danger built into some technologies? Well we need not worry as long as we are confident that we are raising higher quality individuals.

 

Low Education? That's a problem.

Crooked polticians, and a corrupt/overreaching government serving the wills of the select few of the world? That's a problem.

Criminalization of non-dangerous (Safe, Sane, Consentual) acts, such as sexual acts in private, recreational drug use, gambling, Etc...? That's a problem.

Having the tools to meet our societies needs, provide energy, and commodities to our people to give them more time to devote to important efforts such as child rearing, and education? Not a problem.

 

True, that these tools have the potential to be abused, but that doesn't stop us from putting a idiot-man-child into office with the ability to destroy nations. That is these tools have the potentials that we give them. You design something, and make it's expressed purpose to kill or injure another human being? Yah, that is wrong. It's the people behind it that make it dangerous.

 

That doesn't mean we should stop or slow just because somebody (2%? world pop) might abuse it. It just means we should be smarter, more rational in how we use it, and what we model for the world. You hit a child and all that does is teaches the child it's ok to use violence to solve problems. You bomb a nation and all it does is teaches the nation that it's ok to bomb nations to solve their issues.

 

See a pattern here? I do.

 

It's not that I consider technology synonymous with progress though it is a nessessary part for the whole thing, it is not the sum of the concept.

 

I'm just saying, it seems to me that the consideration here is "oh it's bad now and it's getting worse. let's go live in caves, like they did in the good old days when they didn't have mass transportation, medical technology, sanitation, world wide communications, power generation technologies, mass agriculture, and the means to abundent production." It's nostalgia of the mythical era that never existed.

 

You want me to consider your question, well consider mine. Other than weapons what technology posses innate danger to us? What harms us more than it helps? what breaks more than it fixes? What makes worse more than it makes better?

 

I'm willing to bet that in the majority, you'll find if you actually look that technology makes for a more efficient, more educated, more informed, more consciencious, more civil society. That is than anything that has existed before.

 

I guess another way to ask the question is what are the pros and cons of a technologically advanced society, what are the pros and cons of a technologically impoverished society? Which one is the better society (more constructive towards higher quality, more socialized, objectively moral, empathic, educated, informed, expressive individuals).

 

Perhaps you would like to explain how you equate a profession of technological progress to a dangerous attitude. For me it is non-sequitor, that is "It Does Not Follow".

[coberst]

KickAssClown

 

I consider McLuhan to be accurate when he defined technology as an extension of our human body.

 

As you say technology is an instrument. As you say it can be a danger or an asset depending upon the intellectual sophistication of the humans using that technology. Evidence indicates that we do not have the intellectual sophistication commensurate with the technology and thus we misuse it.

 

I would identify intellectual sophistication as a metric for progress and I consider that one measure of that sophistication would be the extent to which we hold technology in check based upon prior evaluation of its possible unintended consequences.

[cwes99_03]

Does having a 3.2 GHZ desktop computer vs. a 2.8 GHz desktop computer really improve the world?

Does having a cameraphone really improve the world that much?

 

I don't disagree that new technology allows for new creativity. After all look at how creative thieves and child pornographers are getting at hiding their identities and stealing other peoples stuff.

 

I think that new technology is fine, so long as you don't force it down someone's throat, and in many cases that is what is being done.

[InfiniteNow]

Does having a 3.2 GHZ desktop computer vs. a 2.8 GHz desktop computer really improve the world?

Does having a cameraphone really improve the world that much?

Does avoiding these things improve it? What is it to improve? Who is making the measurement, what is the context? If my 3.2 Ghz cmp allows millions of pounds of grain to be delivered to the starving, does that outweigh detriment proposed above?

[cwes99_03]

Can you likewise do the same thing with a 2.8 GHZ comp?