Forums → WEPR → How far will science progress?
| 25 | 4098 |
Many think that we will continue to progress in science, but I believe they are missing one factor.
Complexity of further discoveries.
Our brains are not born to adapt to the scientific environment around us. This means that the further we progress, the less the average human would know about science.
Everyone used to know the same about science. Now, only a few know and that is in their major only. Through progression, we would have to create bunch of subs for these majors.
If we go far enough, and things become really complicated...we would need bunch of people just to understand one piece of technology.
- 25 Replies
It's not that our brains, can't adapt to it, it's just that we are so lazy to learn about it. And I'm not sure we'd lose intelligence necessarily.
At one point, we all were somewhat up to date on these sciences, but then we just keep advancing in the high-tech industry. There are only a certain amount of people that really know how to make and control devices, but that's their job.
Now, futuristic devices will work in a complicated way, but we don't need to know how they work, just how to work them.
You also kind of have to specify what sciences you're talking about before further explanations...
You also kind of have to specify what sciences you're talking about before further explanations...
Well anything that improves technology.
Electrical engineering, mechanical...
And like I said, it will be so complicated that we will need too many people just to produce one. I see that as a problem.
It's not that our brains, can't adapt to it, it's just that we are so lazy to learn about it. And I'm not sure we'd lose intelligence necessarily.
THERES ALOT TO LEARN.
Hmm...
Let's take a computer for example, it is easy to operate once you get the hang of it. Er... that was just a random thought that I didn't want to forget.
Drace, remember, we have a key adaptation that opens infinite doors - language. We have the ability to share ideas, that makes things a LOT easier for us. Say humanity invents some super machine which is very complex to create, the people who do know how to create it can teach the other group if they are willing to learn, and then there will be more people who can create that super machine.
Sorry, but I don't understand the point behind your thread, any machine we invent in the future will not cause any more problems than the computer or the washing machine causes.
Actually, I think our brains do adapt well to technology. Not more as imprinted in our genes, but we get used to it as time goes on.
New technology will become old technology. It will be the same analogy. iPhone in the present to Super machine in the future. It will start new, but become old technology. We'll learn how it works, but if it's really that complicated, than we will just try harder, but that only applies if the machine is actually that helpful. We don't a phone that no one can work when there is a simpler phone that we can work.
I bet cavemen wouldn't be able to work a computer, so that proves that we adapt to our technological surroundings.
the people who do know how to create it can teach the other group if they are willing to learn, and then there will be more people who can create that super machine.
It does not work like that. You learn through education such as universities. Now these things wont be easy to teach...
Actually, I think our brains do adapt well to technology.
My point is on the production of these machines. Sure we'll get used to them easily.
We will be depended on manufacturers. Well we already are...
Aha the world is doomed.
Oh and..
I bet cavemen wouldn't be able to work a computer, so that proves that we adapt to our technological surroundings.
Please never use that word next to "so that"
Complexity of further discoveries.
Can you clarify this? I find the rest of the post muddled.
Our brains are not born to adapt to the scientific environment around us.
Is that supposed to be a paradox? Our brains created science. Our brains cannot adapt to what we (will eventually) create?
This means that the further we progress, the less the average human would know about science.
Specialization by definition alienates the average person. I'm sure the average person wouldn't know the intricacies of economics and business practices or advanced mathematics or even the fundamental theorem of calculus. Why is this a problem? It's been progressing as it has since the Industrial Revolution or even the Scientific "Revolution" in the centuries prior (or even when people developed the concepts of loan and interest and the instituion of a bank).
Everyone used to know the same about science. Now, only a few know and that is in their major only.
I am confused by this. Everyone used to know the same about science? Could you clarify that? And what do you mean by "now, only a few know"?
Through progression, we would have to create bunch of subs for these majors.
How would we go about that with any field of Engineering? Any branch of Mathematics? Physics? Chemistry? Biology? With respect to Technology?
iPhone in the present to Super machine in the future.
Isn't the complexity of the iPhone (or any electronic device with a processor) based on its software and not its hardware? The hardware is the engineering and the software is computer science. But, there is not real sense of discovery in computer science (as compared to physical sciences, natural sciences, and mathematics), any more than what we can contrive from what we may set.
You actually have the exact opposite idea, the further we advance in science, the more commonplace science becomes. 200 years ago, when men rode on horseback, scientists dreamed of a vehicle that could drive itself, a machine, that was a car. Nowadays, cars are all over. We dream today of a flying car, in 200 years those will be commonplace. 30 years ago we did not know what DNA was, and now we have most of the world's animal's DNA code, the genome. The further we advance into science, the further they will teach in science class in school. It is not science's fault, it is the student that decided to sleep through class.
It is not science's fault, it is the student that decided to sleep through class.
1. You fail realize my theory.
2. If things get too complicated, you'd need 9999999 hours to even teach a student who is listening.
Ok...I think I get what you are saying, but correct me if I am wrong.
You are saying that as new technologies (and scientific advances in general) are discovered/invented it will become harder and harder to teach and explain those advancements to the next generation. Right?
If that is not what you mean, disregard the rest of my post.
Wouldn't the education system advance as well? As scientific advancements are made, wouldn't our ability to teach (and learn for that matter) advance too? I am not saying that education would advance at the level that the scientific field would, but it's something to consider.
Well its not just about teaching it to others.
I'm talking about the production. If technology becomes so complicated, how will we produce such things?
I think we would get to a standpoint where we will invent new idea but only so few will be invented. I guess our technology to make production easier will increase too.
I still see a problem though
Well I think the same principle applies. Everything will advance (or regress, possibly), so who is to say that we won't be able to keep up with science when it comes to education/production/economy/anything?
I don't see a problem so much as I see the possibility for problems to occur.
Another thing.
Since pretty much all of us live in a capitalist society...
As we progress science and make these strong capitalist societies stronger, the third world countries can fall behind(Even more) and have no hopes of getting back up. So what will happen is, all that land will be invaded by others and BOOM, WaR!
This isn't really a problem if your talking about what I think you're talking about.
As technology advances both the speed of education as well as life spans expand dramatically (calculus which is currently taught in high school was college graduate level work just 50 years ago).
Furthermore advancing technology doesn't just make new things but makes those new things easier and cheaper to produce (look at the explosion of computers or the advent of mass production).
As technology advances both the speed of education as well as life spans expand dramatically (calculus which is currently taught in high school was college graduate level work just 50 years ago).
Yeah and hardly anyone in High school understand it. So its no achievement at all, just a rule change.
I agree with Superz.
I have to add, though, that we have yet to use our mind's to their fullest extent.
The human brain is one of the most complex topics in the field of science and evolution is still going on.
Such, as our knowledge base expands, our ability to learn will expand, the speed at which we learn will expand, our life span will expand and thus, the speed at which our knowledge base expands will most likely remain constant throughout the entire existence of man.
You must be logged in to post a reply!