Tech murders civilization

[peter grimes]

Are you saying that civilization would collapse if we stopped 24/7 activity?

I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.

I definitely don't think so.

 

[Grisu]

Nuclear weapons pretty much can only destroy things. Overall, some scepticism to technologies is healthy, particularly when we lack technology to counteract the negative effects of using other technology. It may have been more prudent to not use nuclear energy until we possess the technology to completely clean up radioactivity, for instance.

I think using computers for processing big data is a potentially dangerous thing since we run the risk of becoming a data addicted society with less accountability to individuals of flesh and blood.

But Nuclear Weapons are just one specific application of a technology. There are good uses for said technology. Which is basically what I've been saying. Technology itself is neutral, what matters is what you do with it.

edit: and I should read what peter wrote before posting...would safe me some typing work

 

[timtofly]

I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.

I definitely don't think so.

I was trying to agree with you against the premise of the thread. Given the population levels, the current technology allows humans to keep active 24/7. If we took away that ability humans would be confined to only about half of a day in which to operate. That would seem to potentially generate a lot of civil unrest, until the population diminishes to a comfortable level.

 

[Millman]

Yes, my posts and topics are no leap of the imagination.

Either way we're a statistic. Two possibilities: We'll survive to a point until we can preserve ourself for long enough or perish from our own tools.

 

[timtofly]

It takes a lot of imagination to view technology in a bad light. The point about being civilized is the wise use of technology. If we were not civilized, then yes technology would be harmful and we would waste it in an uncivilized manner.

Humans can be just as uncivilized without technology.

 

[peter grimes]

I was trying to agree with you against the premise of the thread. Given the population levels, the current technology allows humans to keep active 24/7. If we took away that ability humans would be confined to only about half of a day in which to operate. That would seem to potentially generate a lot of civil unrest, until the population diminishes to a comfortable level.

Ahh, now I see what you meant.

I'm not sure I agree that there would be a lot of civil unrest, though. I mean, if somehow we had to only use solar power and couldn't store the energy I don't think people would just go to sleep when the sun set. At least, that's now how people lived before electricity, so there's no reason to think we would now. Singing around a campfire is prehistorically ancient.

 

[Millman]

I should ask the mods to close the topic after x amount of posts. The topic delves into speculation which some people don't have time for.

I'm drawing a conclusion here. I don't need the itty gritty details of how we die. Hopefully this topic/conclusion helps someone think both ways.

 

[Narz]

Yes, my posts and topics are no leap of the imagination.

Either way we're a statistic. Two possibilities: We'll survive to a point until we can preserve ourself for long enough or perish from our own tools.

You're more than a statistic to me baby!

 

[timtofly]

I should ask the mods to close the topic after x amount of posts. The topic delves into speculation which some people don't have time for.

I'm drawing a conclusion here. I don't need the itty gritty details of how we die. Hopefully this topic/conclusion helps someone think both ways.

Seeing as how even some mods participated in the topic, does not mean that technology is as bad as one is trying to portray. It would seem that it is not technology to blame, but how technology is used by humans. Calling technology the means of decay would be like assuming humans are the only intelligent thing on earth.

"Oh great, humans have arrived. There goes the neighborhood"

 

[peter grimes]

I should ask the mods to close the topic after x amount of posts. The topic delves into speculation which some people don't have time for.

I'm drawing a conclusion here. I don't need the itty gritty details of how we die. Hopefully this topic/conclusion helps someone think both ways.

How would closing the thread help people think both ways? Speaking as a poster, not a moderator, I can't understand how ending a discussion serves this goal.

 

[Tahuti]

But Nuclear Weapons are just one specific application of a technology. There are good uses for said technology. Which is basically what I've been saying. Technology itself is neutral, what matters is what you do with it.

Nuclear tech in general is a net negative: Aside from the risks from Nuclear annihilation, we still don't understand the risks of fission or radioactive waste. It yield some useful treatments against cancer, though.

Technology can only be useful if it is comprehensible to humanity itself. If the technological in general can perpetuate itself, it may no longer present any benefit.

 

[peter grimes]

We still don't understand the risks??

I'm pretty sure we do, actually.

 

[Tahuti]

Can you calculate the probability of a meltdown? The answer, in short, is no. (Please think twice before you say the opposite, past events are not admissable as statistical variables)

 

[r16]

I don't need the itty gritty details of how we die. Hopefully this topic/conclusion helps someone think both ways.

what would Millman would do with the entire range of the Russian ICBM family , from the drift of the thing ?

as a contribution to the thread , the chances of a meltdown increase exponentially when you turn off cooling systems to save money .

 

[peter grimes]

Can you calculate the probability of a meltdown? The answer, in short, is no. (Please think twice before you say the opposite, past events are not admissable as statistical variables)

You didn't say calculate, you said understand. I think we do understand the risks.