• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would you want to start over?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Good point. As would diabetics and others who required modern medicine to survive. I would definitely like to see change for the better, but not a complete reset.
A reset would be a great opportunity for people skilled in more basic & primitive technologies.
I know many who mine fossil fuels, in run primitive engines, farm, blacksmith, etc. They'd
have a competitive advantage over modern people skilled only at video games, TV watching,
selling extended warranties, hunting, & blathering away on the internet. These people would
just die off, leaving the world to be ruled by preppers & antique machinery collectors.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There are currently 7 billionish people on Earth. At anything less than the current level of technology, you can't feed all of them. If we reverted back to hunter gathering, or even Neolithic agrarian economies, most of them would die. Like in the high nineties percentage-wise.
Good points. We've bred ourselves into a precarious situation, dependent on a byzantine network of regulations, support systems, trade relations as well as complex, high-tech systems to grow our food and maintain our living standards.
There's not a lot of slack in the system. We're living at the cutting edge; beyond the carrying capacities of the regions we inhabit. Any disruption can throw things into serious disarray.

Clearly we can't all go back to hunting and gathering, but we can take steps to gradually decrease our population to a level more in line with carrying capacity.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
How come people don't like to stick with the scenario? Geez is it that hard? For once It would be nice to see if folks expand on the scenario :mad:
How isn't this expanding on the scenario? If the question is 'would humans band together and make the world a better place without modern technology' my answer is no and my post is why.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
We are on the verge of inventing complete AI, so its a bad time to return to the dust. The galaxy is about to be populated with intelligences. They will travel for endless light years, spread out and change; and they will carry the memory of this home as their womb. An explosion of life is about to begin which will destroy Fermi's Paradox. Tell me that isn't cool.

Alright we've been through this before:

terminator_0_0.jpg
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Did this occur in the movie? I honestly don't recall it. It seemed to be concerned with the arms race and little else.

You'd have to see the movie I don't want to spoil it for you but towards the end of the movie yes part of my hypothetical scenario did occur.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
The land couldn't support our massive population with so few people being able to farm effectively. Most people would lack any functional skills for the new world. Probably 90% of people would die from hunger of violence.

Seeing as the best case scenario is living to see most people I know dying from hunger or violence, I'll pass on this opportunity of a lifetime.

Ok.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You made two scenarios from my scenario.
Can you elaborate for me? I think removing modern day technology would have devastating effects akin to a disaster scenario where most people will die and many people will turn ugly. Not considering that impact in the scenario is like that Battlestar Galactica illustration, where we get a fade to black before considering the impact of those consequences.

If that's not related to what you're asking then what are you asking?
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Can you elaborate for me? I think removing modern day technology would have devastating effects akin to a disaster scenario where most people will die and many people will turn ugly. Not considering that impact in the scenario is like that Battlestar Galactica illustration, where we get a fade to black before considering the impact of those consequences.

If that's not related to what you're asking then what are you asking?

You had two sci fi scenarios that threw me off is why I made that emoji. I think humanity would do fine but yes a lot of us would die I don't quite call the figure 90% but yes a lot of us would die.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You had two sci fi scenarios that threw me off is why I made that emoji. I think humanity would do fine but yes a lot of us would die I don't quite call the figure 90% but yes a lot of us would die.
Honestly I think I ended up having four scenarios by the time I was done. Lol
So you're a scenario 4 Thanos kind of guy you would say?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Alright we've been through this before:
I meant no disrespect and was serious.

The tendency to presume new technology is 'Evil' is an old one, Aristotelian and Egyptian. It often indicates a fear of change rather than an identified real problem. In the West its champion is the soldier CS Lewis who having survived WW1 identified all technology as evil and spent his life creating theological arguments against it. We all have that kind of reaction sometimes, but we can't have the knife without also having its edge. We couldn't chop our onions. Should we go back to biting straight into them? No, but that is the kind of change you are suggesting.
 

MJ Bailey

Member
But how is it slavery considering we have no overlord? We have a chance to change our nature or prove that our nature is unchanged.
If you consider that every person is a slave to themselves in one way or another. Every person in any situation will have their own experience and feelings of how events occurred, therefore creating their own judgements. This in my opinion deletes the necessities of an overlord. As far as a need to prove natures flexibilities, evolution occurs rather or not we want it to or not. To explain myself further, if we choose to not change something detrimental would make us ignorant to the idea and truth behind "things change" rather or not that change is acceptable to anyone's liking or disliking. I totally agree with the idea that some people are in dire need of changing their nature (murders, molesters, rapist, etc.) but as a whole there is no way to stop things from changing unless there is a unification between people as a whole. When evolution of species occurs on earth, the entire species usually evolves although this can be regionally selective.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Good points. We've bred ourselves into a precarious situation, dependent on a byzantine network of regulations, support systems, trade relations as well as complex, high-tech systems to grow our food and maintain our living standards.
We've always had our systems, agriculture methods, regulations, norms - our technology has changed but we really haven't changed that much. Ultimately, even still 200,000 years later we still depend on each other for our survival, and due to our evolution as social animals we are lost and hopeless without the order and group cohesion that culture and society gives us. Take it away and suddenly we can't even communicate with each other. The Code of Hammurabi, the Hellenic Greeks, imperialist Romans, Polynesian, First Nations, UN, everywhere is dictated by how food is grown, social regulations (which includes everything from interpersonal conduct to trade), and our relation to others and the environment.
 
Top