I might get flamed to a crisp for this, but is technology necessarily a good thing? Like, just think: Two hundred years ago, the pioneers built log cabins with the bare minimum of tools, and cut down the trees themselves. Today, no one in America would ever do that, even if they had to. They probably couldn't. And I'mAmerican, and that's the way I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Two hundred years ago, the pioneers built log cabins with the bare minimum of tools, and cut down the trees themselves. Today, no one in America would ever do that
The Amish people do that. Anyways I think technology is kind of mixed. It's good because it helps us do things more quickly then back then. I think it's bad because it causes us to use things like coal to power it up and it pollutes the air. But there are alternatives to creating electricity rather than coal.
The Amish people do that. Anyways I think technology is kind of mixed. It's good because it helps us do things more quickly then back then. I think it's bad because it causes us to use things like coal to power it up and it pollutes the air. But there are alternatives to creating electricity rather than coal.
Yes, but alternate energy and fossil fuels are also all forms of technology. Everything we build and use as a tool to accomplish something is technology.
a double edged sowrd is what i think it is...it helps save lives, gets us places, talk to another over fast distances but in america its made alot lazy, very, so its helps us and hurts us
How are you defining technology? Because the tools and skills to build that log cabin in your example is technology being used.
When I say technology, I'm not referring to the entire definition, as I assumed that people wouldn't whack me about that. I mean technology like computers, microchips, fuel burning, etc. And think, also, about the environmental impact, and other things. And would those lives need to be saved in the first place had we not invented that technology?
When I say technology, I'm not referring to the entire definition, as I assumed that people wouldn't whack me about that. I mean technology like computers, microchips, fuel burning, etc. And think, also, about the environmental impact, and other things. And would those lives need to be saved in the first place had we not invented that technology?
I think if you define technology like that, no, it isn't necessarily a good thing. It can lead to cool things like video games or movies, it can lead to a better health care.. but frankly, if I look at indigenous hunter-gatherers, I feel like all of this is unnecessary. Those tribes lead a great life without all these entertainments; and they live a life healthy enough without needing all those medicaments (except for some sole cases of course). Plus, they live a sustainable life, know how to live with their environment and not at the expense of it.
Well, without the chemical fertilizers 40% of the human population would not have enough food, and I should have died a while ago without technology. And about the "useless" technology, I think it's tied too much with the useful one. If we have the knowledge to make useful tech, someone will use it for useless or even bad tech. For example, nuclear centrals use the same knowledge used for nukes.
Of course, if you withdraw all technology from the current society, it would probably collapse. But I was more talking about if we hadn't had it at all. I don't say there is no useful technology, but though useful, it is not necessary.
Well, you kinda have to take the positives (not all are listed): +Faster information sharing +Faster transportation +Lower death rates +Better sustainability (For us) +Doing everything faster. And then weigh those against the negatives (again, not all listed): -Less social interaction -More damage to the environment -Higher demands for necessities (food, shelter, etc.) -less willpower or physical strength -less "vital" knowledge, i.e. how to build a fire -less challenge. There's just no more challenge to life any more if we always use the tech in everything. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm saying that if we rely so much on advanced technology, what happens if it breaks? And if we take the challenge out of life, then what do we do? What are our goals, our ambitions? Who do we aspire to be?
I might get flamed to a crisp for this, but is technology necessarily a good thing? Like, just think: Two hundred years ago, the pioneers built log cabins with the bare minimum of tools, and cut down the trees themselves. Today, no one in America would ever do that, even if they had to. They probably couldn't. And I'm American, and that's the way I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You have failed to explain about why it is inherently good to build log cabins and have a relatively low standard of living compared to what we have today.
And also, back then, the life expectancy was that of a 3rd-world country; about 40-50, because of death in childhood and rampant infectious disease. This is part of the beauty of modern medicine and technology that saves countless more lives than it kills.
I thought that this would take an environmentalist viewpoint, but this is way too easy...
Ouch. Thanks for the flame. And I'm not talking about why it's good to do other things. I'm asking "are we really better off because of all these things like computers, TVs, 120mph land travel, etc. Even if the life expectancy was lower, is a higher life expectancy really that good? If we live longer, there are more of us, which brings overpopulation and starvation, which causes third world countries. And I'm not saying that we should start living like pioneers. I'm saying that we need to consider how easy they had it to how easy we have it. Then tell me which person does more: the average pioneer, or the average American citizen? (just using America because its where I live).
I'll admit defeat on the medical thing, though. That's pretty much always good, as long as it doesn't cause weakened immune systems that are devastated when a disease that's unfamiliar comes along. And as for modern technology, would we have car accidents without cars?
