Technological Problems

[The Hammer]

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity "
-Albert Einstein

One of the biggest takeaways I have had from my spiritual path as of late (last few years), is that technology appears to be our undoing. It has given us many many wonderful things, and we have learned so many ways to help and care for the world and those around us. But with that, we have also unleashed untold horrors from nuclear bombs taking out vast swaths of land, to the basic misuse of fire that burns millions of acres.

How far are we willing to push technology? Is no environmental or moral degradation too great? I assume since this ball is rolling, that it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Would a better approach to our usage of technology have been possible? Maybe only a select few have access to particular technologies? Farmers get farming stuff, doctors get their stuff, but the majority of that information is out of the publics hands?

 

[King Phenomenon]

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity "
-Albert Einstein

One of the biggest takeaways I have had from my spiritual path as of late (last few years), is that technology appears to be our undoing. It has given us many many wonderful things, and we have learned so many ways to help and care for the world and those around us. But with that, we have also unleashed untold horrors from nuclear bombs taking out vast swaths of land, to the basic misuse of fire that burns millions of acres.

How far are we willing to push technology? Is no environmental or moral degradation too great? I assume since this ball is rolling, that it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Would a better approach to our usage of technology have been possible? Maybe only a select few have access to particular technologies? Farmers get farming stuff, doctors get their stuff, but the majority of that information is out of the publics hands?

the world’s going To end within 50 years anyway so I wouldn’t worry to much

 

[The Hammer]

the world’s going To end within 50 years anyway so I wouldn’t worry to much

Of course of course.

 

[MikeF]

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity "
-Albert Einstein

One of the biggest takeaways I have had from my spiritual path as of late (last few years), is that technology appears to be our undoing. It has given us many many wonderful things, and we have learned so many ways to help and care for the world and those around us. But with that, we have also unleashed untold horrors from nuclear bombs taking out vast swaths of land, to the basic misuse of fire that burns millions of acres.

How far are we willing to push technology? Is no environmental or moral degradation too great? I assume since this ball is rolling, that it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Would a better approach to our usage of technology have been possible? Maybe only a select few have access to particular technologies? Farmers get farming stuff, doctors get their stuff, but the majority of that information is out of the publics hands?

From my perspective, this seems somewhat hyperbolic. The historical total of land area affected by nuclear bombs seems small to that of conventional weapons.

While some wildfires are the result of human action, they are also caused by lightning and as such, wildfires have been a fact of nature before humans got involved. Ecosystems in areas prone to wildfires have adapted to that reality so I'm not seeing how wildfires are a problem of technology.

You added in moral degradation at the end there. Do you have an example of how technology exacerbates moral degradation? It also begs the question of who's moral standards you are using to evaluate said degradation.

 

[The Hammer]

From my perspective, this seems somewhat hyperbolic. The historical total of land area affected by nuclear bombs seems small to that of conventional weapons.

While some wildfires are the result of human action, they are also caused by lightning and as such, wildfires have been a fact of nature before humans got involved. Ecosystems in areas prone to wildfires have adapted to that reality so I'm not seeing how wildfires are a problem of technology.

You added in moral degradation at the end there. Do you have an example of how technology exacerbates moral degradation? It also begs the question of who's moral standards you are using to evaluate said degradation.

"An ye harm none, do what ye will"
Anything else is questionable.

 

[Heyo]

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity "
-Albert Einstein

One of the biggest takeaways I have had from my spiritual path as of late (last few years), is that technology appears to be our undoing. It has given us many many wonderful things, and we have learned so many ways to help and care for the world and those around us. But with that, we have also unleashed untold horrors from nuclear bombs taking out vast swaths of land, to the basic misuse of fire that burns millions of acres.

How far are we willing to push technology? Is no environmental or moral degradation too great? I assume since this ball is rolling, that it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Would a better approach to our usage of technology have been possible? Maybe only a select few have access to particular technologies? Farmers get farming stuff, doctors get their stuff, but the majority of that information is out of the publics hands?

I agree that we have more technology than we have morals, but it is moot to think about how we can get rid of technology. We should concentrate on getting more morality.

 

[icehorse]

From my perspective, this seems somewhat hyperbolic. The historical total of land area affected by nuclear bombs seems small to that of conventional weapons.

While some wildfires are the result of human action, they are also caused by lightning and as such, wildfires have been a fact of nature before humans got involved. Ecosystems in areas prone to wildfires have adapted to that reality so I'm not seeing how wildfires are a problem of technology.

You added in moral degradation at the end there. Do you have an example of how technology exacerbates moral degradation? It also begs the question of who's moral standards you are using to evaluate said degradation.

99.9% of historical and current agricultural practices create ecological collapse. The fact that we're depleting our fresh water aquifers and our topsoil FAR, FAR faster than they can be replenished has been known for decades, if not centuries. To fail to act on these problems represents failures on many fronts, including moral fronts. I believe it is immoral for us to ruin ecology and leave the mess for future generations.

Back to the OP, to me technology is just a tool. Tools can be used for good or ill. I'd say that we need to approach problem solving from the perspective of true, long term sustainability. If we did that for real, I think technology could still be a good thing. The traditional problem is that technologists - like most people - tend not to be interested in sustainable solutions

For example, EVs are NOT truly sustainable, they do NOT represent a good use of technology to solve problems. They just "kick the can" down the road a few decades.

 

[MikeF]

99.9% of historical and current agricultural practices create ecological collapse. The fact that we're depleting our fresh water aquifers and our topsoil FAR, FAR faster than they can be replenished has been known for decades, if not centuries. To fail to act on these problems represents failures on many fronts, including moral fronts. I believe it is immoral for us to ruin ecology and leave the mess for future generations.

Back to the OP, to me technology is just a tool. Tools can be used for good or ill. I'd say that we need to approach problem solving from the perspective of true, long term sustainability. If we did that for real, I think technology could still be a good thing. The traditional problem is that technologists - like most people - tend not to be interested in sustainable solutions

For example, EVs are NOT truly sustainable, they do NOT represent a good use of technology to solve problems. They just "kick the can" down the road a few decades.

I agree. I would only say that it is not that technologists are not interested in sustainable solutions, it is that current economic structures do not provide adequate return on the effort. If a manufacturer of a product is not responsible for what happens to the product and its packaging once it is sold, there is no incentive to address the issue of the packaging and product end-of-life and all the extra cost associated with that. Without regulation making all manufacturers responsible, a lone ecologically-minded company would not be able to compete, taking on the added cost alone, except perhaps to serve a high-end niche market which does not put a dent in the large-scale problem.

I'm sure technologists would love to tackle the problem if they could get paid for it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity "
-Albert Einstein

One of the biggest takeaways I have had from my spiritual path as of late (last few years), is that technology appears to be our undoing. It has given us many many wonderful things, and we have learned so many ways to help and care for the world and those around us. But with that, we have also unleashed untold horrors from nuclear bombs taking out vast swaths of land, to the basic misuse of fire that burns millions of acres.

How far are we willing to push technology? Is no environmental or moral degradation too great? I assume since this ball is rolling, that it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Would a better approach to our usage of technology have been possible? Maybe only a select few have access to particular technologies? Farmers get farming stuff, doctors get their stuff, but the majority of that information is out of the publics hands?

I think that what you propose is, simply put, an impossibility.

It is impossible to keep know-how of tech "out of the hands" of select targetted groups of people. You can try, but those groups are going to figure it out sooner or later anyway. Especially in this day and age.

It's like that whole AI debate today.... "we need to keep that tech out of the wrong hands!!". How they think they are going to manage to do that is beyond me. It's just not gonna happen.

If a country like North Korea can get their hands on the know-how to develop nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles capable of carrying them, how do you expect to keep ANY tech out of ANYONE's hands?

It's just not going to work.

I see no real solution here. The problem is that too many humans aren't responsible enough to be able to deal with the power of tech.
And I'm not just talking about "backwards" countries or savage / barbaric cultures.

Even the prominent "elites" of the so called "morally superior" west are just as bad when it comes to responsible use of technology.
Look at companies like google, facebook, twitter etc and what nasty stuff they have released upon the world.

Many of the original engineers that invented all this stuff have left those companies, completely disgusted by the monsters they themselves have build and have helped build. All of it for greed and nothing else. Some had good intentions at the beginning, but did NOTHING to stop it or roll it back when they say what horror consequences their products had.

Forget about nuclear bombs and stuff... at least those things are unlikely to actually be used.
The nasty tech that is found on every smartphones in average joe's pocket are the silent killers of society, democracy and moral decency.


And in all honesty, I don't see at all how we can turn this thing around. I use the cyber-tech as an example here, but we can apply the same logic to pretty much any tech. What's extra depressing is that I feel that the worst is still to come. AI is going to be a monster which will have the potential to destroy society as we know it in every way we can imagine and even worse.

Sorry for the depressing post. But I don't see a nice future ahead of us.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This debate goes back to classical antiquity; Homer, describing the horrors of the battlefield, observed that mass warfare was made possible thanks to sophisticated bronze weapons and armour, and the advanced naval technology available at the time of the Trojan wars.

 

[Augustus]

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity "
-Albert Einstein

One of the biggest takeaways I have had from my spiritual path as of late (last few years), is that technology appears to be our undoing. It has given us many many wonderful things, and we have learned so many ways to help and care for the world and those around us. But with that, we have also unleashed untold horrors from nuclear bombs taking out vast swaths of land, to the basic misuse of fire that burns millions of acres.

How far are we willing to push technology? Is no environmental or moral degradation too great? I assume since this ball is rolling, that it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Would a better approach to our usage of technology have been possible? Maybe only a select few have access to particular technologies? Farmers get farming stuff, doctors get their stuff, but the majority of that information is out of the publics hands?

There is a reason Prometheus was punished for stealing fire from the gods.

We are too stupid to use technology responsibly, this will never change.

There might be the odd exception, but almost all technologies that have beneficial usages also can cause significant harms.

If they can cause such harms, then we will experience them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Would a better approach to our usage of technology have been possible? Maybe only a select few have access to particular technologies? Farmers get farming stuff, doctors get their stuff, but the majority of that information is out of the publics hands?

The way that societies grow and change that would wind up being "Poor people should get little education" and "Only the wealthy have the moral strength to wield technology without being corrupted by it."

What we need is a biological revolution. We need biology to catch up with and supersede hardware technologies. For example there is no reason that we could not grow furniture, houses or many other things. Instead of melting raw materials and brewing chemicals, everything could be grown. We lack the knowledge and tools to do it, but they are within our reach. We can use AI and information technology to help us obtain them. Currently we use plants crudely. We cut the bamboo to shreds to glue it back together instead of directing its growth, and we don't control the speed of its growth. We make glass by melting down sand instead of having organisms construct glass for us.

Sounds difficult and far off, but its more likely to happen than getting society to drop technology altogether.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Well in a few hundred years you won’t have to worry about technology. It’ll be like the old days.

 

[The Hammer]

Well in a few hundred years you won’t have to worry about technology. It’ll be like the old days.

I worry for my children, their children, their children's children etc

 

[King Phenomenon]

I worry for my children, their children, their children's children etc

I hear ya. Eventually it’ll be ok but there might be some generations after us that have it rough