Why have we lost faith in technological progress?

[Zontar]

As an aside, the elephant in the room is (over) population.

I disagree. Unless Europe does what some of the higher ranking EU officials want and bring in a billion Africans over the next few decades (which realistically won't happen) the issue of overpopulation is mostly contained to Africa. Even then, the development of nuclear fusion will likely remove that issue from North Africa, and the coming population crunch in sub-Saharan Africa due to development should take care of it there. Not that there's too much of a problem to begin with, we already have the technology to feed 40 billion people, and the excesses beyond our needs for survival will likely not surpass growth that stems from better mining means and the development of space infrastructure.

Hell just look at oil. The US a decade ago being a net exporter of oil was unthinkable, yet today it's just that, and projected to become the biggest oil exporter in the years to come. New technology has been developed to not only remove 95% of the garbage in oceans, but to make money off of doing so to boot. The problems of today are being solved with technology, usually through means that make it profitable to do so, which is why the US continues to lead in innovation in the tech side of things, while the other free market capitalist nations of the world are the first to adopt such technology no matter what level of development they are.

I'm generally optimistic despite my post history. The problems of today are temporary, and while society may not progress linearly, technology seems to, and I'm certain the problems of today will be solved despite the best efforts of some to perpetuate and exacerbate them for political reasons.

 

[Zontar]

Meanwhile, technology that was found only in sci-fi 20-30 years ago is now common place in middle-class households.

Middle class? Even the poor can afford a smartphone, hell in Kenya having a smartphone is such a norm that many businesses use them for transactions since you can't just mug someone's money out of one, making them an ideal means of transaction. This for technolgy that was, as you pointed out, science fiction only 20-30 years ago. Hell even in Stargate Atlantis when they used Pads it was implied at the time that the tech was boosted by alien tech they'd acquired since no such technology was readily available at the time on the consumer market. It's amazing how quickly things are developing, even my laptop I'm writing this on is only a few years old and already obsolete compared to anything on the market.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I have actually been frustrated with the lack of "positive future" movies, series ect as everything out there is about the world being destroyed and post apocalyptic scenarios rather than mankind pulling their shat together and solving the worlds problems to make a better future. Outside of Star Trek, most everything out there is about people destroying ourselves instead.

The reason for that is a) a positive future is too boring to make a film about, and b) there isn't going to be a positive future.

We have no means of reaching another habitable planet (as an aside, it turns out the hyped-up EM drive technology appears to be related to the Earths magnetic field, hence can't be used for space propulsion). Short-termist thinking caused by political terms and capitalist greed means that the required investment is not going to happen. The current planet is doomed by the same. Even if it isn't, technological advancement will make everyone bar the owners of said technology redundant and a drain on resources. These people will have all the influence, all the resources, and no reason to care for the rest.

There'll inevitably wind up being some form of conflict in Earth orbit (China has already tested an anti-satellite missile, which has caused a large portion of the current space debris), which will make it more and more dangerous to launch any kind of spacecraft, climate change is going to fuck up everything, and as a civilisation we can't even go to the toilet without somebody throwing a hissy fit, let alone solve complex global issues.

I mean, a Fallout style future is possibly preferable to the status quo future where the rich get richer and let the poor die. At least then they have to work for their gains.

1) positive future does not have to be boring. it would only be boring if they lack creativity. I see the whole " World destroyed and at war" scenario to be overdone and boring. It is terribly lazy and lacking creativity.

2)High tech positive future does not need to focus on space at all. There is plenty that can be focused on earth alone. Where is the scenario that they solved Greed? Clean up the environment including their space trash? (they are already working on that FYI)

Space does not need to be the primary focus of a high tech future scenario. You can have space mining asteroids and such, and even limited space travel, but a high tech scenario could focus on life and events on earth and how people used technology to rebuild cities and solve the problems. It does not have to be boring however, the setting is not what necessarily makes a good story line. There are numerous options for what a positive future of what is possible with life on earth if mankind decides to focus their resources on doing so.

 

[Catnip1024]

2)High tech positive future does not need to focus on space at all. There is plenty that can be focused on earth alone. Where is the scenario that they solved Greed? Clean up the environment including their space trash? (they are already working on that FYI)

Greed won't get solved. The greedy are the ones with all the influence. And I'm well aware of the feeble efforts to deal with space debris, I just have no confidence in their long-term success rate, considering things are still getting chucked up faster than they are taken down (and considering there are thousands of untrackable small items of debris, each of which does a lot of damage at 11km/s). Because short-term business needs supersede long-term viability.

Space does not need to be the primary focus of a high tech future scenario. You can have space mining asteroids and such, and even limited space travel, but a high tech scenario could focus on life and events on earth and how people used technology to rebuild cities and solve the problems. It does not have to be boring however, the setting is not what necessarily makes a good story line. There are numerous options for what a positive future of what is possible with life on earth if mankind decides to focus their resources on doing so.

Yup. I still think that realistically, we're doomed. Optimism about the future is for chirpy news reporters who don't quite understand how bad it's all going to be.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yup. I still think that realistically, we're doomed. Optimism about the future is for chirpy news reporters who don't quite understand how bad it's all going to be.

Yes and no. On the one hand, we are doomed, yeah, reality is a nasty place to live.

OTOH, it's always been that way, people mostly muddle through.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

See, I started losing my enthusiasm when I realized that "automation will mean more leisure time for everybody" was a goddamned lie.

Mind you, a few dozen strategic murders could get us back on track for that.

 

[Elijin]

The average person hasnt lost faith in technology. They've simply gotten so much faith in it, that it's no longer visible. It's a given that your tech will do, almost anything you ask of it. It's a given that every year or so will bring ever more cutting edge tech. It's a given that at some point in the next generation or so, new frontiers will be crossed.

Tech has become so ingrained in our lives that it rarely gets thought, let alone praise. Dragons and magic and superpowers are the land of fantasy. Even half the sci-fi tech simply prompts people to wonder how close, and what the practical version will be like.

A good example is looking at motoring and flight at conception, vs now. Having access to a motor vehicle(in a first world country) is no big deal. Nor is flying between states, or countries. What was once technological marvels to shake the world are now so common place we dont even consider how insane it is we casually manoeuvre several tons of steel and plastic at speeds so far beyond our species physical capabilities its absurd.

 

[KuroMadoshi]

I would rather say that people have lost trust in technology, the recent facebook scandal and many breaches of privacy and data by Google and the countless hacks and robberies of user data and credit card information have left the masses feeling insecure. Not to mention the implications of Governmental breach of privacy in the name of security, one can come to understand why people would distrust technology and lose interest in technological progress.

 

[Satinavian]

I would rather say that people have lost trust in technology, the recent facebook scandal and many breaches of privacy and data by Google and the countless hacks and robberies of user data and credit card information have left the masses feeling insecure. Not to mention the implications of Governmental breach of privacy in the name of security, one can come to understand why people would distrust technology and lose interest in technological progress.

Now come on. There were warnings about that for over a decade. Was anyone really surprised ?

At least in my social circle no one changed their online behavior as reaction or expressed any loss of trust.

And if the long and bitter fight over privacy laws and regulations never familiarized people with the idea that gouvernment might abuse date, well.


I know i am significantly safer concerning my data than i was at a young age in a far less technological advanced environment. And i do hardly more than the bare minimum to keep my data safe.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

As for spaceships, how is a colony on Mars going to make things better in my everyday life?

It's not about happiness. It's about survival in the future.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

2)High tech positive future does not need to focus on space at all. There is plenty that can be focused on earth alone. Where is the scenario that they solved Greed? Clean up the environment including their space trash? (they are already working on that FYI)

Greed won't get solved. The greedy are the ones with all the influence. And I'm well aware of the feeble efforts to deal with space debris, I just have no confidence in their long-term success rate, considering things are still getting chucked up faster than they are taken down (and considering there are thousands of untrackable small items of debris, each of which does a lot of damage at 11km/s). Because short-term business needs supersede long-term viability.

Space does not need to be the primary focus of a high tech future scenario. You can have space mining asteroids and such, and even limited space travel, but a high tech scenario could focus on life and events on earth and how people used technology to rebuild cities and solve the problems. It does not have to be boring however, the setting is not what necessarily makes a good story line. There are numerous options for what a positive future of what is possible with life on earth if mankind decides to focus their resources on doing so.

Yup. I still think that realistically, we're doomed. Optimism about the future is for chirpy news reporters who don't quite understand how bad it's all going to be.

Greed is the first step that has to be resolved in order to stabilize our civilization, It is the single factor affecting the collapse of civilization the most.

I do think Greed will be solved. Many nations are already working on that, it is just a matte of time before everyone has to and eventually there will be no legal way for Greed to get out of hand as balancing resource distribution is what it will take for civilization to progress.

I have more faith in humanity that they will eventually pull their shat together. The "peasants" will have another uprising ( as they always do) and that is when things will start to change.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

As for spaceships, how is a colony on Mars going to make things better in my everyday life?

It's not about happiness. It's about survival in the future.

Not necessarily. They have to solve the issues on earth before thinking that it would be beneficial to colonize Mars. There is nothing currently stating that moving to mars will increase our chances for survival as in reality most of what would impact earth would impact mars even moreso.

If we really want to increase survival we would focus on solving problems on earth first, and increasing earth's defenses and instead of trying to focus on Mars, eventually we would need to focus on being able to survive outside the habital zone. I see focusing on Mars at all as a waste of time and resources that would be better utilized on things that will actually help long term. I see playing house on Mars as setting us back rather than helping us in the long run.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I would rather say that people have lost trust in technology, the recent facebook scandal and many breaches of privacy and data by Google and the countless hacks and robberies of user data and credit card information have left the masses feeling insecure. Not to mention the implications of Governmental breach of privacy in the name of security, one can come to understand why people would distrust technology and lose interest in technological progress.

I have difficulty understanding how people ever even remotely thought they were secure online, or that Google, Facebook or anyone else promised security.

I think that was "assumed" rather than being based in reality as everyone should have been made to understand that there is nothing that is "secure" online and be warned to never have a false sense of security. The government was told ahead of time never to put vital systems and information accessible by internet, they chose to do so knowing that it would be compromised. There is no actual reason it has to be in reality and they could return to the manual system of having those systems separate and secure. They do so knowing they are intentionally compromising US security while doing so.

I also do not understand how they mentally relate the security of the internet to be representative to all technology rather than everything else being separate from the internet. The internet is not and never will be secure and people should have understood what it was they were doing when they use it. Ignorance of what it is they are using seems to be the source of the issue.

I guess every time they turn on their device it should tell them" The internet is not and never will be secure, as long as your device is connected to the internet it will not be secure." and maybe they would finally " get it"?

 

[vallorn]

As an aside, the elephant in the room is (over) population.

I disagree. Unless Europe does what some of the higher ranking EU officials want and bring in a billion Africans over the next few decades (which realistically won't happen) the issue of overpopulation is mostly contained to Africa. Even then, the development of nuclear fusion will likely remove that issue from North Africa, and the coming population crunch in sub-Saharan Africa due to development should take care of it there. Not that there's too much of a problem to begin with, we already have the technology to feed 40 billion people, and the excesses beyond our needs for survival will likely not surpass growth that stems from better mining means and the development of space infrastructure.

Hell just look at oil. The US a decade ago being a net exporter of oil was unthinkable, yet today it's just that, and projected to become the biggest oil exporter in the years to come. New technology has been developed to not only remove 95% of the garbage in oceans, but to make money off of doing so to boot. The problems of today are being solved with technology, usually through means that make it profitable to do so, which is why the US continues to lead in innovation in the tech side of things, while the other free market capitalist nations of the world are the first to adopt such technology no matter what level of development they are.

I'm generally optimistic despite my post history. The problems of today are temporary, and while society may not progress linearly, technology seems to, and I'm certain the problems of today will be solved despite the best efforts of some to perpetuate and exacerbate them for political reasons.

I disagree with parts of this, overpopulation isn't the issue in Africa. Rhodesia was the breadbasket of the continent while Zimbabwe is a wreck sucking in food from other nations. And no, I'm not trying to make some "race realist" (gag) point with that, because the problem is manyfold, primarily, it's corruption, but it also has significant elements of the EU's massive trade tarifs reducing trade with Africa (and thus impoverishing the continent, historical mismanagement (similarly to what we see in some South American nations like Venezuela), and the histories of some of the worst of the European empires like the French and Spanish mixing in there. Africa can sustain a larger population than it currently has but not without improving other sectors to allow the farmers to modernise without having half their income stolen by petty bureaucrats taking bribes...

Also, to address a running theme in this thread, "greed" is not a problem to be solved. It's an inherent part of human nature and to "solve" it historically involves the worst genocides in all of history. Not to say we can't manage the excesses, but greed at the core is a positive trait for humanity.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Also, to address a running theme in this thread, "greed" is not a problem to be solved. It's an inherent part of human nature and to "solve" it historically involves the worst genocides in all of history. Not to say we can't manage the excesses, but greed at the core is a positive trait for humanity.

What would ever make you think greed was a positive trait? Greed is what has caused the worst genocides in all of history and is the cause of the current wealth inequality that is supposed to make our civilization collapse. Greed is why we have millions die every year. Greed is hoarding all the resources forcing others into poverty suffering and death. We would have solved world hunger, drought, and homelessness if it were not for greed. We currently have the technology to solve all those things, we just need people to stop hoarding the resources and focus them to where they are needed. Greed is the only obstacle preventing that from happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

 

[Elijin]

Also, to address a running theme in this thread, "greed" is not a problem to be solved. It's an inherent part of human nature and to "solve" it historically involves the worst genocides in all of history. Not to say we can't manage the excesses, but greed at the cor is a positive trait for humanity.

What would ever make you think greed was a positive trait? Greed is what has caused the worst genocides in all of history and is the cause of the current wealth inequality that is supposed to make our civilization collapse. Greed is why we have millions die every year. Greed is hoarding all the resources forcing others into poverty suffering and death. We would have solved world hunger, drought, and homelessness if it were not for greed. We currently have the technology to solve all those things, we just need people to stop hoarding the resources and focus them to where they are needed. Greed is the only obstacle preventing that from happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

Greed is also the driving factor behind a ridiculous number of advances, to reach the point where excess greed will doom us all. For every person who developed some wild breakthrough by accident or for the greater good, there's 2 who did something comparable to line their pockets. Or took those developments, and made them accessible to the world, to line their pockets.

No one here is saying greed is our saving grace or admirable, but it definitely put us in this paradoxical position where if greed just stopped, everyone's problems would be solved (which, is such a severe simplification anyway).

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Also, to address a running theme in this thread, "greed" is not a problem to be solved. It's an inherent part of human nature and to "solve" it historically involves the worst genocides in all of history. Not to say we can't manage the excesses, but greed at the cor is a positive trait for humanity.

What would ever make you think greed was a positive trait? Greed is what has caused the worst genocides in all of history and is the cause of the current wealth inequality that is supposed to make our civilization collapse. Greed is why we have millions die every year. Greed is hoarding all the resources forcing others into poverty suffering and death. We would have solved world hunger, drought, and homelessness if it were not for greed. We currently have the technology to solve all those things, we just need people to stop hoarding the resources and focus them to where they are needed. Greed is the only obstacle preventing that from happening.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

Greed is also the driving factor behind a ridiculous number of advances, to reach the point where excess greed will doom us all. For every person who developed some wild breakthrough by accident or for the greater good, there's 2 who did something comparable to line their pockets. Or took those developments, and made them accessible to the world, to line their pockets.

No one here is saying greed is our saving grace or admirable, but it definitely put us in this paradoxical position where if greed just stopped, everyone's problems would be solved (which, is such a severe simplification anyway).

Profiting and earning a living is not the same as greed. Ones need to have an income to survive does not necessarily mean Greed.

Greed, or avarice, is an inordinate or insatiable longing for unneeded excess, especially for excess wealth, status, power, or food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
Even being wealthy does not necessarily mean they are greedy. Greed on the other hand is specifically seeking that excess in selfishness at the cost of all others. Many wealthy use their wealth to help others rather than specifically seek to hoard resources and allow others to perish in the process.

Those that seek to prevent others from having so they will have more than them, or those who seek to gain power over others are the problem. Simply earning wealth through your work and invention does not meet the criteria.

 

[Elijin]

Profiting and earning a living is not the same as greed. Ones need to have an income to survive does not necessarily mean Greed.

Greed, or avarice, is an inordinate or insatiable longing for unneeded excess, especially for excess wealth, status, power, or food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
Even being wealthy does not necessarily mean they are greedy. Greed on the other hand is specifically seeking that excess in selfishness at the cost of all others. Many wealthy use their wealth to help others rather than specifically seek to hoard resources and allow others to perish in the process.

Those that seek to prevent others from having so they will have more than them, or those who seek to gain power over others are the problem. Simply earning wealth through your work and invention does not meet the criteria.

I cant tell if you're really naive, or just committed to 'being right'. The majority of the entities that have the wealth and power to 'fix' the world's problem with things like hunger and homelessness absolutely only have it because they were driven by greed. Greed created a world where there is the excess of wealth and industry to theoretically solve the problems on a global scale.

Its.....actually pretty rare to see someone in the upper tiers of wealth who 'just earned wealth through work and invention'. Those tend to live comfortably upper class lives.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Profiting and earning a living is not the same as greed. Ones need to have an income to survive does not necessarily mean Greed.

Greed, or avarice, is an inordinate or insatiable longing for unneeded excess, especially for excess wealth, status, power, or food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
Even being wealthy does not necessarily mean they are greedy. Greed on the other hand is specifically seeking that excess in selfishness at the cost of all others. Many wealthy use their wealth to help others rather than specifically seek to hoard resources and allow others to perish in the process.

Those that seek to prevent others from having so they will have more than them, or those who seek to gain power over others are the problem. Simply earning wealth through your work and invention does not meet the criteria.

I cant tell if you're really naive, or just committed to 'being right'. The majority of the entities that have the wealth and power to 'fix' the world's problem with things like hunger and homelessness absolutely only have it because they were driven by greed. Greed created a world where there is the excess of wealth and industry to theoretically solve the problems on a global scale.

Its.....actually pretty rare to see someone in the upper tiers of wealth who 'just earned wealth through work and invention'. Those tend to live comfortably upper class lives.

Oh yes I know there are entirely too many " greedy" in the world, and yes they are the core of the problem though I thought most of the wealthy that are here now, inherited it.

My perception of inventors though is from my friend that was lower middle class who invented an ink that would not smear and then became very wealthy very fast. My other friend who now owns his own electric company, and still volunteers at the shelter and donates tons to charity. Then of course there is the likes of Markus Persson who was just trying to recreate his childhood in the woods in a game and when he became wealthy, he made sure his friends did so as well and shared it.

I just do not think that wealth and greed are necessarily linked. Maybe I think there are more people in the world like Markus and less Trumps because I see people as more likely to be good to one another than think money and power is more important than people.

 

[SD-Fiend]

We simply understand the limits of technology better than we used to.

Technological growth wasn't as fast as people dreamed it would be and world changing breakthroughs always start out clunky and inaccessible to most people till it gets refined into some sort of everyday commodity years later when it's just something nobody really thinks about.