Homosapian hasn’t naturally evolved for around 200,000 years.
And “natural” means without human intent or design.
Nevermind that it depends what kind of evolution you’re talking about. It’s funny you should present that statement as a fact. Do you have evidence for that number? Googling it reveals a lot of conflicting views, including estimates that say we stopped evolving 10,000 years ago, alongside studies concluding we are still evolving, even in a Darwinian sense. But then again you said naturally evolved, and you define as artificial anything man made, and so you’ve created a tight little circle of definitions wherein humankind stopped “naturally evolving” the moment it started using it’s own creations to aid in it’s survival. Because for some reason, it is unnatural to for humans to create ways to stay warm or prevent infection. i suppose it is likewise unnatural for bees to generate hives, or birds to construct nests? The spider web must be artifice as well!
As i see it, there’s 2 artificial dichotomies at work in what you’re saying: 1)Natural/Man-made, and 2)Humans/Other Animals.
And again, the question still remains: At what point in it’s development does technology become the menace you portray it as?
According to you, nothing man does is artificial, including whatever dichotomies he proposes. So which is it?
Two primary points;
- When a homosapian can no longer defend himself as an individual due to too much technology, perhaps not at his service
- When homosapian is in threat of extinction (due to his own insane/misuse of technology).
The only thing stopping certain interests from shutting down the internet is the fact that a generation of kinds grew up with these tools of “tyranny,” and I would presume more cleverly than expected learned how to use it against the system. The hackers.
Think: if the internet was shut down, we would more-or-less be fucked. It would just be a bunch of people who have lost the ability to think well, surrounded by a near-perfected environment of control.
Given that, don’t you think that it’s fair to say that technology is the only thing holding us together at this point? Most other avenues - food, even - are compromised. But the internet is still a relatively neutral, relatively free place. We need to explore this whole online thing if we want to have any chance at getting out of the Age of Predatory Governments.
It reminds me a little bit of this scene from Inception:
EAMES
Forget it. We go any deeper, we
just raise the stakes. I’m sitting
it out on this level.
COBB
You’ll never make it, Eames.
Fischer’s security is surrounding
this place as we speak. The ten
hours of the flight is a week at
this level- you’ll never make it
without getting killed. Downwards
is the only way forwards. We have
to carry on.
Saito groans.
Cobb looks at him-
COBB (CONT’D)
And we have to do it fast.
Well sure, the dichotomies come naturally and work fine up to a point. Water is “natural”, Diet Coke is “artificial”. Everyone gets that, as a description. But you’re extending beyond just using the dichotomy to describe whether or not something is man made - you’re inventing a fundamental ontological difference (or something) between what humans do with technology and, i suppose, some imagined, all-natural world where humans exist without using technology, or perhaps where there are no humans at all. And then from there, you’re going on to imply that the use of technology is overwhelmingly bad. Why? Apparently, because the imagined artifice-free world is nicer and less dangerous than the one wherein humans invent and use technology. My problem with that is it’s all imagination (or, if you will, artifice).
But when was homosapien ever able to defend itself without technology?
Well that’s blaming technology for the insanity of the people who use it, and/or blaming all technology for the damage wrought by very specific technologies.
Is the use of Heroin bad?
When was homosapian ever able to live without drugs?
Do you blame heroin for the way people use it?
Recently approved post:
Well okay. So if you think about a rock star who has made his fame and wealth based upon drug induced performances, you can see that he will very probably “fall apart” if he were to suddenly stop using drugs. At very least his performance would shift, requiring a whole new fan club to be established. And right now, I suspect the USA could use a different fan club than the one it has.
One doesn’t just suddenly stop using their crutches. They learn a new way of living and profiting that might still use a small amount of crutch, but not under the control of the decision maker. Without limits, drugs, just like technology, take over everything until the people are nothing. And that is EXACTLY what is actually planned and intended, “Androids for ALL!!” … “Androids in place of all”. But why? Well, because “we” (the android society) perform so much better and accomplish SO much more. But for whom and to what end?
It seems your questions are rhetorical, but i’m not sure what you’re getting at, so i’m going to answer them anyway:
-
The use of heroin is generally “bad”, yes.
-
Homo Sapiens survived without drugs probably until alcohol was discovered.
-
No, i do not blame heroin for the way people use it.
Is ALL use of heroin bad? Probably not. And all use of technology isn’t bad either. The point being that its use, like the use of heroin, is addictive such as to cause later failure. You just haven’t been introduced to that later time of failure yet (although it is getting seriously close).
Not even close. Herbs and medications were used by shaman, “physicians”, and such people so as to influence others as far back as any historical recording.
Nor do I blame technology for how people use it.
The point is that technology allows for stupid people to gain immense power over others. And much like the musician on drugs, governments become dependent upon their use of technology such that the thought of giving it up is unspeakable. They gain their power through the use of a crutch and now it is expected of them (their fan club) and they don’t know how to survive (perform) without it. The serious bad is that they can’t survive with it either.