Is more technology the answer?

Is more technology the answer?

Technology is a positive feed back system. When the output of the system increases the system goes at a higher rate. There is no equilibrium in a positive feedback system. Capitalism is such a system.

In a negative feed back system when the output increases the system goes at a slower pace or turns off completely, like the thermostatically controlled home heating furnace. Such a system seeks and maintains equilibrium. Our body is such a system.

As our world population continues to increase we (humanity) face a big question: How will we feed everybody? Until lately, India thought that they had found the answer for creating cheap food for their hundreds of millions.

“Farmers in the state of Punjab abandoned traditional farming methods in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the national program called the “Green Revolution,” backed by advisers from the U.S. and other countries.

Indian farmers started growing crops the American way — with chemicals, high-yield seeds and irrigation.

Since then, India has gone from importing grain like a beggar, to often exporting it.

But studies show the Green Revolution is heading for collapse.”

When he Green Revolution was launched 40 years ago framers began to grow only high-yield crops instead of their traditional crops. The new crops required more water than the old crops so that farmers were required to create new wells. These new wells caused the ground water level to fall and the declining level caused the water to become more salty than before. These new wells required better and more expensive pumps, which led to indebtedness by the farmers.

This led to a problem similar to the problem we in the US have recently experienced, i.e. India’s Wall Street equivalent grew fat and happy and farmers accumulated debts that they could not pay. This created a financial “quicksand”.

The new crops demanded much more from the soil and the water wells pumped more salty water because of lowered ground water and the combination destroyed the soil.

During the good years the farmers increased their standard of living and built new homes for their families, thus adding more debt.

“It’s like a disease that is catching on in the world,” says Suba, “building a life that is like a house of cards.”

"The state and farmers are now faced with a crisis…India’s population is growing faster than any country on Earth, and domestic food production is vital.

But the commission’s director, G.S. Kalkat, says Punjab’s farmers are committing ecological and economic "suicide”… Kalkat says only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But he says this one has to be sustainable.

The problem is, nobody has yet perfected a farming system that produces high yields, makes a good living for farm families, protects and enhances the environment — and still produces good, affordable food.”

India’s Farming ‘Revolution’ Heading For Collapse
npr.org/templates/story/stor … =102944731

more technology= better weapons= more dead liberals.

history never repeats

-Imp

If technology is used wisely then more technology can become beneficial to humanity, but it would have to be implemented in conjunction with planetary harmony for the benefits to out-weigh the dangers…

It depends on what the question is.

If the question is, “Will technology save us from ourselves?” or “Will technology solve our problems?” I think we’ve dabbled enough in it to know that the answer is “no”. On the other hand, few of us would want to dispense with indoor plumbing and information technology.

Technology provides optimizations for getting certain tasks done. Every time you optimize something, you make something else sub-optimal. Technology often makes life more pleasurable, safe, and speedy; it also allows us to level forests or vaporize cities or denude oceans of life with relatively modest effort. Many times, even more modest uses of technology produce unintended consequences that take decades to recognize and centuries to reverse, assuming we even have the will to do so. For example, in the past century or so we’ve introduced electromagnetic and radio frequency energy into the environment in all spectrums, plus we have introduced literally thousands of synthetic plastics and chemicals into the environment, most of them untested in the combinations they’re typically encountered in. These sorts of activities find us living in an environment that humans have never before encountered. Who knows how much chronic and/or totally new illnesses that have cropped up in recent decades are the result of such changes? Who knows how it has altered our evolution, or simply stunted our development?

I’m not saying technology is bad and we should go back to the horse and buggy. Even the horse and buggy are technology, after all. I’m just saying … it’s a positive feedback system, as you say, and it doesn’t seek equilibrium. It gets used for short term purposes and has long term effects, and if we aren’t thoughtful and aware of how we use it, it’s going to blow up in our faces on a regular basis – just as it is for the Indian farmers.

–Bob

Orson Wells dwelt on the subject matter that he saw tearing wide open during his time, and we’re still wrestling with it.
Technology is capable of moving faster than man can “morally” keep pace with in wisdom of how to use it responsibly.

The question isn’t really, “Is more technology the answer?”
It’s more rather, “Do we understand how to use more technology responsibly?”

The answer will always remain the same; “no”.