A prudent society would put technology on hold

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

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?

2

no, a prudent society would eliminate environmentalist wackos who want to take us back in time before the industrial revolution.

-Imp

3

Yep, I agree. The biggest problem I know of right now is “peak oil”:

lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Although apparently this is raising some concerns:

rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/

The problem is: politics. That any candidate who says “we have a problem that requires sacrifice” won’t get elected, because the other candidate will say “that is defeatist and not the American Way! We will conquer this challenge just as Americans always have! And don’t let my opponent tell you any different!” etc., and the people will vote in the “optimistic” candidate over the realistic one.

So while I agree with you, I think people’s penchant for living in a state of denial will elect living-in-a-state-of-denial candidates. :smiley:

4

Any advance in technology can be used for better or worse. When fire was advanced, that allowed someone to set someone else on fire. When iron was first smelted, it allowed people to kill each other with iron weapons. I could go on with a thousand different examples.
Technology is not at fault for anything. People misusing that technology is. It doesn’t matter what technology, or how advanced it is. Individual persons are responsible for using that technology for good or ill, not people in general, or technology in general.

5

But if there was no automobile we would not be able to distroy our planet, perhaps.

6

Eugenics would have probably been a potential solution in the passed. Breeding and culturing a race of peace and moderation, would potentially lead to an unabusive, unwasteful, undestorting application of potentiality by that race with any and all technology that it ever had.

But, peaceful races which have no real concern for war, and no interest in greed, my soon find themselves to be wiped out by a race which loves war, and is excellent at war.

Violence and killing requires a focus upon, and an exploitation of weakness. Predators and parasites do this. A virus is, essentially the same. It cannot live on its own, and must, instead, proliferate itself by means of exploiting weakness.

Imperial simials – are essentially mob-parasites, whom have been known to consume, infect and destroy each other many times, but, as a whole, have better odds of infecting, destroying and consuming, if they hunt and destroy something other than themselves, as a group.

Peaceful races can only be shocked at the imperial simials. But, much like a little boy at the school yard, who does not want to be hurt, but does not want to fight, the bully, who causes fights, has more experience with fights, and thus “wins” most of these sorts of fights.

“Winning” one of these fights, is only seen as a victory by imperial simials, who are, as I’ve said, parasites/predators. Such supposed “winning” is, in more accurate terms, a virus spreading. The aids virus, for example, “wins”, and is darwinistically “superior” to a human baby and a human mother, if it should so happen to subvert the immune systems of their bodies. But, a virus is far more simple, and far closer to being dead/poison – that a human body is. The amount of genetic code in a human body, and the amount of potential in a human body, is far greater than the parasites which can kill or infest that human body.

This principal also applies to imperial simials. Humans can extinct species, destroy eachother with weapons of mass destruction, armies, and economic strong-arming. But, humans are not “superior” to that which it destroys, in the same way as a virus is not superior to that which it destroys. If a being should so happen to destroy, it has merely proven itself to be destructive, dangerous, hurtful and infectious.

Humans invented “darwinism”, which is basically the antinym of higher meaning and truth. In such a supposed paradigm, the most deadly and the most mass-productive system is supposedly nature’s choice. After causing every war, the simial imperials act as if the war was meant to be there. Everything they do, all of their evil, and all of their lies, they justify, defend, and love.

A superparasite or a superpredator can only become extinct once it has destroyed all of its food. Humans can eat almost anything… Can you see where I’m going with this?

There is a biological, “natural-disaster”, which has been happening for thousands of years. It shall continue to happen, on a planet brimming with fragile, corruptable life.

I do not see much any sort of solution being possible for this earthly situation. I see the victims, whom are dead, broken, and scattered, as ghosts on the other side, in need of repair and a soft, safe and warm home to exist within, and also, in need of a sort of living family, to help compensate for a lacking self-sufficiency. I also see the causers of the problems: the non-victims, of which, are completely happy with themselves for what they have done, and do not feel the pain and the death which they cause.

7

danny.oz.au/communities/anthro-l … index.html

Violence rates amoung simials, depends upon race, not upon who has more cars, etc.

Asians, for example, are of the races which have the highest IQ, and are more superior in many other ways. Asians are less violent, aswel.

Blacks are fly, though…
youtube.com/watch?v=zboM-BW9u-g&NR
(check out these homiez, they got some cool new moves…)

Anyways, behavior is genetic…

As I’ve said before, in the virus-to-host thesis, parasites tend to be far simpler, and far more destructive.

This also applies to race.

Simpler, lower IQ races – manifest more parasitic nature, are far less altrustic, and are far less kind.

But, parasites dominate society, and race-genetics has been either used as a weapon and a stupidly distorted set of facts to excuse hate, or, race-genetics have been a suppressed technology, suppressed by the lieing parasites and inferiors which want to hide what they themselves really are.

8

I don’t think that the aims of technology are achieved and also…I don’t know how the thought that our chances for survival are diminished follow from the fact that technology has ‘reached it’s aims’ (progressed) cause the ‘aim’ of technology is supposedly, the opposite. (pro-survival).

(so I’m 100% pro tech, even if it kills us in horrible ways :imp: )

9

Dan~: If you actually believed the crap you’re spouting, you would end your life right now. According to what you say, every single person on the planet right now is part of the problem. So, assuming you’re a person, you are a part of the problem. So taking your own life would help to alleviate the burden on mother earth, according to your own logic.

10

You’ve misread.

I want all beings, strong and weak, intelligent and stupid, inferior and superior, to have peace, harmony, health and safety.

Destruction of environment is a form of indirect, impersonal suicide. The environment is the selves. Destroying any being, is a form of self-destruction.

If I come here and basically say: “killing is bad, all life wants to live, none should ever EVER harm each other.”, how can you go and estimate that I’d wish for – for even killers to be killed?

Mind control is already possible, with this underdeveloped technology simials have today. It would be possible to deprogram destructiveness from a body, by means of a few hours, or days, of a combination of LSD and hypnosis, etc.

Imagine that, removing the destructiveness from a mind, instead of destroying a mind. And yet, this is an example of a non-destructive way of dealing with beings which are destructive: reprogramming, assimilation, etc.

Also, as I’d suggested eugenics as a means to a more peaceful end. This means especially selective breeding. A gradual progression. Not a war, nor a weapon.