Technology, the end of mankind - my theory

[ShindoL Shill]

So what you're saying is you'd rather have cholera than TV?

Or, you know, we could just use technology to create some kind of infinitely renewable source of fuel.

what, you mean like get power from the WIND? or maybe the SUN? oh, why not the tides while we're at it?
/meta-sarcasm.

You have a very needlessly aggressive way of agreeing with people.

YES THE FUCK I DO!

 

[McMullen]

snip

Look OP, I won't question the results of your thinking because you lost me right up there (yes I read it all). If you start out with false information, your thoughts aren't worth anything, by no means am I trying to put you down with this by the way, your just working with faulty logic here and I consider it fairly likely that you might reach a different conclusion if you understood the things you brought up better. Go back, look some things up, rethink this, then I'll be glad to discuss this with you.

First post summarized: I don't think we should fix problems caused by technology with more technology.

So, where did you get this mistrust of technology, and why is it so firmly entrenched in your head that even after the facts that your posts are built on are refuted, and after it has been pointed out that quitting technology "cold turkey" is even worse than industrial collapse, and the hypocrisy of your suggestion has been pointed out, you still keep going as if there's nothing at all wrong with your idea?

I get the impression that you're either not reading our posts, or you're dismissing our arguments out of hand without considering what they mean.

Do you at least understand that you are making assumptions that are just plain untrue?

 

[Soods]

So, where did you get this mistrust of technology, and why is it so firmly entrenched in your head that even after the facts that your posts are built on are refuted, and after it has been pointed out that quitting technology "cold turkey" is even worse than industrial collapse, and the hypocrisy of your suggestion has been pointed out, you still keep going as if there's nothing at all wrong with your idea?

I get the impression that you're either not reading our posts, or you're dismissing our arguments out of hand without considering what they mean.

Do you at least understand that you are making assumptions that are just plain untrue?

I haven't been trying to prove anything here, I have just told things as I see them. And yes, quitting cold turkey would be terrible, and I never said we should do it, I just stated that it is one of the few options we have left.
I haven't responded to posts, because they are missing the point. We WERE fine before without the fancy technology, but we aren't anymore. Once we went down the tech path, we were no longer able to go back, even if we wanted. The only choice we seem to have left is to keep getting more and more dependant on the technology.
And as one of you pointed out, we can't quit breathing either. To me, it's sad that technology has taken such a major role in our lives that it's comparable to breathing. If any of the previous assumptions is false, please point out which one so we can work the details.

 

[alandavidson]

I think we'll kill ourselves with war far before we even come close to running out of fuel.

 

[Sandytimeman]

these two videos pretty much let me know if we want to we wanted to we could easily switch over to very small amounts of fossil fuels.

Spoiler

this blew my mind, the advance ment of green energy solutions from renewable resources is insane. I cannot wait until humanity grasps these new technologies whole heartedly.

 

[FernandoV]

So I've been recently doing a lot thinking. And if you question the results of my thinking, I don't blame you, everyone else questioned them just as well.

A couple of thousands of years ago, all that mankind was, was pretty much just monkeys with clothes on. It lived in harmony with it's environment. It had to fight nature constantly to survive, just like every other species.

But because humans are good at making stuff, we started farming and living in bigger and bigger groups and formed cities. Then we slowly started making our life easier and easier through miraculous inventions. These inventions allowed us to sustain a higher number of population. But we were never satisfied, we always needed more. Then we got the real machines, they needed fuel, but we had a lot of it.

Now because of the machines mentioned before, we have been able to sustain an exponential population growth, there's more homo sapiens than there ever was before, and it's all thanks to these machines, they allow us to live. But what if these machine stopped working? What if there was an end to this fuel? It would become impossible, for this 6 billion people to continue living. Thus, we need more and better technology just to stay alive.

Just like drug addiction, technology doesn't only harm us, but everyone and everything around us. The greatest mass extinction since dinosaurs is currently underway, because of technology. The whole planet is dying, because of technology. All life on this planet could die at any moment, if a handful of humans push wrong buttons and launch some nukes.

In the end, there are only two ways out, stop using technology (cold turkey) and maybe survive. Or continue the cycle of technology addiction and hope to keep up with the ever-increasing needs.

I'm not sure if anyone else has come up with these results, but atleast I haven't heard of it.
I'd love to hear what you think of technology and whether you agree with me or not.

EDIT: In this case ("A couple of" != 2)

I think you're suffering from a case of USI also known as unwarranted-self-importance. A dose of reality should clear that up.

Dose of Reality: Those simpler times were filled with just as much self-interest as the age of technology has. See, in the times of nomads when one tribe needed a resource and encountered a competing tribe for that resource, a battle for that resource would ensue. With the age of technology we've only made that reality more complex and systemized.

Your theory is a little to simple to be the panacea to the philosophical dilemma of the root of all evil.

 

[Hoplon]

Humans are inextricably entwined with technology.

Getting rid of it would be like getting rid of being bipedal.

 

[Soods]

snip

I do not wish to argue with one as aggressive as you, but since you insist, I am afraid I have to.
I advise to look at my clever wording in the unholy starting sentence.

A couple of thousands of years ago, all that mankind was, was pretty much just monkeys with clothes on.

Pay attention to the words "pretty" and "much". These babies can go a long way. We were NOT monkeys, we were ALMOST monkeys. We still are. It's just a matter of perspective.

Alright, A bad worker blames his tools, right? You are right, we are responsible for our crimes against life, we can't blame our tools for it, after all, we created them. But still, without the technology, we would have never become such an evil species.

 

[Burst6]

snip

I do not wish to argue with one as aggressive as you, but since you insist, I am afraid I have to.
I advise to look at my clever wording in the unholy starting sentence.

A couple of thousands of years ago, all that mankind was, was pretty much just monkeys with clothes on.

Pay attention to the words "pretty" and "much". These babies can go a long way. We were NOT monkeys, we were ALMOST monkeys. We still are. It's just a matter of perspective.

Alright, A bad worker blames his tools, right? You are right, we are responsible for our crimes against life, we can't blame our tools for it, after all, we created them. But still, without the technology, we would have never become such an evil species.

In a way, you are right. Without technology we would never have done anything bad, because we wouldn't have existed. The only reason we exist is because a long time ago an ape decided to use a stick instead of its hands, in other words, technology.

Also i really hate the word evil. We aren't evil. Nothing is evil. Evil doesn't exist, we made it up. Evil is a lazy word people use when they don't want to understand something. Every time i hear that word used seriously i cringe.

Also, crimes against life? What crimes? Tell me one thing we have created that has caused more damage than nature.

 

[McMullen]

snip

I do not wish to argue with one as aggressive as you, but since you insist, I am afraid I have to.
I advise to look at my clever wording in the unholy starting sentence.

A couple of thousands of years ago, all that mankind was, was pretty much just monkeys with clothes on.

Pay attention to the words "pretty" and "much". These babies can go a long way. We were NOT monkeys, we were ALMOST monkeys. We still are. It's just a matter of perspective.

Alright, A bad worker blames his tools, right? You are right, we are responsible for our crimes against life, we can't blame our tools for it, after all, we created them. But still, without the technology, we would have never become such an evil species.

What.

Monoochrom touched on this, but in case you missed it, our ancestors were using tools before we evolved. That means that, for as long as our species has existed, it has been one of the many animal species that uses tools. It is simply a trait of being human. The big difference is that we are better at improving our tools than anyone else, and one of our unique tools was the ability to record or pass on knowledge detailed enough to enable the next generation to build on the work of the previous generation.

So, in a way, Homo Sapiens is somewhat DEFINED by the use and improvement of technology. It's not something we adopted.

Also, the reason Monoochrom has lost his temper is because you goaded him into it. You come on this forum having no idea what you're talking about, and when we point this out to you, you either ignore us or focus on the definition of the word "couple", and go on repeating ideas that we have pointed out are bunk. Simply put, there is a great deal of similarity between you and a troll, only trolls do what they do purposefully, while you do it out of ignorance. You are also arrogant and refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints, or if you listen to them, you do not consider them. While Monoochrom did drop the F-bomb, you had already been giving him the finger for several hours through your approach to this thread. He decided he was done tolerating it, and I really can't blame him.

I'm done posting on this thread as well, I think. It's pretty clear that your ignorance is of such a magnitude that almost everyone in this thread can see right away how out of touch you are with reality. As such, it will probably be a self-correcting problem, because no one will take you seriously until you either learn to do research, or learn to be quiet.

 

[BrassButtons]

We WERE fine before without the fancy technology, but we aren't anymore.

The most destitute people alive today have a higher standard of living than our ancestors had prior to technology. What you're defining as "fine" was a life of starvation, illness, predators, and high infant mortality. So for this to be true you first need to explain how life pre-tech was good, and then explain how the advances of technology have made things worse. You have your work cut out for you.

Once we went down the tech path, we were no longer able to go back, even if we wanted. The only choice we seem to have left is to keep getting more and more dependant on the technology.

You keep talking about dependency on technology, but this is as silly as discussing how zebras are dependent on their stripes or how sea anemones are dependent on their poison. Technology isn't an addiction; it's an adaptation. Every organism is dependent on its adaptations.

But still, without the technology, we would have never become such an evil species.

Explain how having technology that lets us save billions of lives makes us evil. (By the way, one of those lives belongs to my little brother. So you're going to need one hell of an argument to tell me why we're evil for developing the technology that saved him).

 

[Soods]

Also, crimes against life? What crimes? Tell me one thing we have created that has caused more damage than nature.

I think it's a bit exaggerating to compare damage caused by one species to that caused by the entire universe. But compared to other animals, we are clearly on the top.

 

[Soods]

The most destitute people alive today have a higher standard of living than our ancestors had prior to technology. What you're defining as "fine" was a life of starvation, illness, predators, and high infant mortality. So for this to be true you first need to explain how life pre-tech was good, and then explain how the advances of technology have made things worse. You have your work cut out for you.

Yes, The life was simplier and a lot harder. What I'm trying to say is that technology limits our lives. But yes, it also expands them.

You keep talking about dependency on technology, but this is as silly as discussing how zebras are dependent on their stripes or how sea anemones are dependent on their poison. Technology isn't an addiction; it's an adaptation. Every organism is dependent on its adaptations.

You can call it adaption, but the symptoms still remain. And technology isn't yet physically a part of us.

Explain how having technology that lets us save billions of lives makes us evil. (By the way, one of those lives belongs to my little brother. So you're going to need one hell of an argument to tell me why we're evil for developing the technology that saved him).

Our species does a lot more harm than good to our environment. Except for a few nutcases, we only focus on ourselves. I think this little brother, just like most humans, ends up costing the environment more than he does for it.

 

[aprildog18]

I don't think technology will but the end of mankind.
I'm sure life would be really boring if we didn't have ANY technology. I don't want to hunt, eat, poop, and sleep for my entire life.

 

[Soods]

snip

I think the problem is that you two came to a philosophical debate without knowing what you were getting yourselves into.
This is not a scientific research.
And maybe my posts make more sense if the "technology"-word is replaced with "modern technology".