Thread: Self Perpetuating Technology

Much of our technology is devoted to making, finding or buying other technological equipment. The rest is concerned with allowing us to live our lives faster, so we have more 'spare' time in which we may use other technological equipment.

The important things to us though remain the same as thousands of years ago. Good quality food, a good nights sleep, warmth, love, sex, friends, family, meaningfull work. The same basic needs as always, and what does technology really do to aid us with any of these? Technology distracts us from the important, removes meaning from many peoples work, creates poor food, and pushes people into lonely and insular lives.

Technology is self perpetuating and we can easily become its slaves.


(There is obviously purpose in medical science and certain other scientific endevour, but this is science - not the technology that I am talking about above)

Your point is completely moot.

You cannot stop the inevitable.

It's inevitable because:

Technology continually "raises the bar" in business. As businesses which employ new technologies gain competetive advantage, other business have to follow suit to remain in the game. Rinse, repeat. It's a cycle that has been in place since the dawn of man.

While I understand and sympathize with your sentiment, I think it's naive.

IMO, the challenge is not to avoid the inevitable, but to learn to shape yourself to thrive in it.

Technology does bring down the cost of some goods while bringing up the quality of others. Food is an interesting one as you can now get just about anything in a frozen box that was put in that box by a machine. I'm not sure where the food actually touched human hands. I think some of it never does. Chicken in machine, frozen box of chicken out. The quality however is sub standard, yet many people live off this cheap boxed food.

Automobiles I think have really gained from technology, they are built far better then they have been in the past and inflation aside they are pretty cheap. Now if they will just stop burning dead dinosaurs in them we would be ok.

Computers are of course my favorite form of technology so far, without them we would not be able to figure out how to get that chicken in the box without touching it

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Your point is completely moot.

I don't think so.

You cannot stop the inevitable.

This is true only if you believe that it is indeed the inevitable.
That technological development is inevitable, is merely a belief.

There are indigenuous human societies that have made little or no technological development for centuries, if not millenia. Technological development is not something inevitable.

It's inevitable because:

Technology continually "raises the bar" in business. As businesses which employ new technologies gain competetive advantage, other business have to follow suit to remain in the game. Rinse, repeat. It's a cycle that has been in place since the dawn of man.

1. Technological development depends on natural resources. Natural resources that modern technology utilizes, are not infinite. This cycle, as it runs now, will one day break.

2. You assume that "the game" is an inevitable necessity, as if the players had no saying in it.
People could stop buying so many products they don't really need. It is a belief that there have to be hundreds of shades of hairdye, for example. The economy happens to work this way -- but there is no reason to believe that his is the only way economy can work.

While I understand and sympathize with your sentiment, I think it's naive.

I think yours is self-victimizing and naive.
Nothing personal against you, but I think it is indeed naive to think that one *needs* all that technology. If you think you need all that technology and products, then you have let modern society lie to you about who you are and how you are supposed to live.

IMO, the challenge is not to avoid the inevitable, but to learn to shape yourself to thrive in it.

Yes, this is the host adapting to the parasite.

Originally Posted by water

I don't think so.

Of course you're entitled.

This is true only if you believe that it is indeed the inevitable.
That technological development is inevitable, is merely a belief.

I disagree. I offer globalization as evidence. As natural resources because more scarce because of rising demand, technology allows more for less and will as such, be sought. It's the natural order.

There are indigenuous human societies that have made little or no technological development for centuries, if not millenia. Technological development is not something inevitable.

That they do not currently participate is irrelevant. Let's look at the species as a whole. I'd wager than given enough time they too would follow the same mold. The rate of advancement is beside the point.

1. Technological development depends on natural resources. Natural resources that modern technology utilizes, are not infinite. This cycle, as it runs now, will one day break.

That is ill-informed. First... my point above regarding efficiency, secondly, you're thinking too earth-bound. We'll get what we need elsewhere if we can't get it here. Such is the nature of demand. If we want it, we'll pursue it if it's apparently feasible to do so.

2. You assume that "the game" is an inevitable necessity, as if the players had no saying in it.

Do you have a say in having been born with two hands? What about which culture into which you were born? You can certainly change what you'll be later, but to what extent? I'd say that the current state of the species is VERY strong evidence that the players have their say, and it's "go".

People could stop buying so many products they don't really need.

Ah, the idealism. Some people could, sure. Besides that, you don't change human nature, and this is all a manifestation of survival methinks. As the struggle for day to day survival eases, our minds provide material to keep the struggle going. Instead of struggling for a meal, we struggle for a hot-tub. Again, I think this is just the way it is. Of course that's a generalization and different individuals respond differently to different circumstance, but over-all... I believe my point stands. Perhaps it should be further discussed.

People will always buy what they think they need, if they think they have the resources to do so. It's just that simple. It's pretty much that IMO, that drives this whole deal, but again it's just an extension of the need to survive as skewed into abstract space.

It is a belief that there have to be hundreds of shades of hairdye, for example. The economy happens to work this way -- but there is no reason to believe that his is the only way economy can work.

It's not the only way, but it's the most efficient to satisfy demand (even if that demand is planted by the perveyor of the product). If I can successfully create and satisfy a demand, my economic prosperity is gaurenteed. Given my desire to gaurentee my economic prosperity (as is the survival standard in modern life), I am motivated to engage in the process. Doing so adds a huge value to society via jobs, benefits, etc to the people who assist in creating, making and providing the product. Of course there is "opportunity cost", but such is the way of things. I can't have my cake and eat it too.

Then again, I'm the guy who did that thread about how economic principles, darwinism and humanity are all facets of the same thing.

I think yours is self-victimizing and naive.

Okay.

Nothing personal against you, but I think it is indeed naive to think that one *needs* all that technology.

I did not say I "need" it, or that you "need" it, or imply any such thing. I merely noted its inevitability. There is only one direction, forward. There are implications to this advancement that you apparently haven't considered. IMO, there are two probable outcomes to the natural development of technology as we currently witness. Either it eventually becomes SO advanced that it basically provides infinite resources (can satisfy any demand within the possibilities of physics), or we all die. I think that's pretty much the outcome of humanity either way.

Our quest is to control our environment to ensure our survival. We are doing a damn good job IMO. Not perfect, but we're on the road. Hope we don't all die from it... but if so, I'd still rather have been on the road than sitting around doing nothing. That is a cause I would and may die for.

If you think you need all that technology and products, then you have let modern society lie to you about who you are and how you are supposed to live.

LOL. It's my opinion that if you are susceptible to such messages as an adult, you deserve to believe them. Again though, I didn't say I need it... I said it's natural... it's inevitable.

Yes, this is the host adapting to the parasite.

Such a narrow view. Is evolution a parasite? From that perspetive, life itself is parasitic and if so, so be it. I do not blame my acknowledgement of the inevitability of technological advancement on something feeding from me. IMO, the relationship is symbiotic. As with anything I can think of, there are facets of it I don't enjoy as much as others. Regardless of either of our opinions on the matter however, the world moves on... and the players advance.

The important things to us though remain the same as thousands of years ago.

If you truly believe that our lives have not been enriched with technology and that our diets and medicines have helped us to live longer lives, but instead claim that our lifestyles are worse than a thousand years ago, you MUST be living in a cave.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

Automobiles I think have really gained from technology, they are built far better then they have been in the past and inflation aside they are pretty cheap. Now if they will just stop burning dead dinosaurs in them we would be ok.

Computers are of course my favorite form of technology so far, without them we would not be able to figure out how to get that chicken in the box without touching it

But look at this self perpeptuating cycle described;
I drive to work in my car to get there quickly.
So that I can sit at my computer.
Which is used to help make and sell hardware parts for computers.
These computers (some of) are sold to car manufactureres.
Who use the to design and sell new cars.
which I buy to get to work quickly.
So that I can sit at my computer .......

Now I know that we need a means of wealth distribution, and this will always end up in a returning cycle as described above - but there are dozens of other cycles that we could engage in for wealth distribution other than the production of meaningless technology.

If we were not engaged in that, maybe we would engage in wholesome food production or the construction of houses that are actually built to last. Or can you imagine if all the effort spent on new cars, phones, MP3s, DVDs, TVs was redirected and spent on medical advancement or space exporlation!!!

Originally Posted by wesmorris

I did not say I "need" it, or that you "need" it, or imply any such thing. I merely noted its inevitability. .

It will only be inevitable if you believe it so. By believing its ineviability you make it so. (not just you but the millions of other who believe likewise).

By refusing to believe in its inevitability we can create a different future for ourselves, if we so choose. We do to some large extent control our own destiny in this way.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Our quest is to control our environment to ensure our survival. We are doing a damn good job IMO. Not perfect, but we're on the road. Hope we don't all die from it... but if so, I'd still rather have been on the road than sitting around doing nothing. That is a cause I would and may die for..

Our quest is to preserve the environment and live with it - not to control it.

Again you believe in the inevitability that we have ruined the world and it is doomed to destruction , so you continue down that path.

( it may well be doomed in a few million years but we cannot really fathom such scales, our task is to worry about the next few hundred / thousand years)

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Such a narrow view. Is evolution a parasite? .

Our evolution is the development of our physical, emotional or intellectual abilities. What we are discussing here is not evolution. It is possibly devolution, as technology often reduces our intellectual and physical abilities. eg high school kids who cant do simple math because they always use a calculator, obese kids who sit in front of a computer all day. Even the medium of communication we are now engaged in reduces our emotional inolvement with each other!

Making phones that take pictures is not evolution, nor are fast cars, automatic doors etc.

Originally Posted by (Q)

If you truly believe that our lives have not been enriched with technology and that our diets and medicines have helped us to live longer lives, but instead claim that our lifestyles are worse than a thousand years ago, you MUST be living in a cave.

Read my opening post again, I say that I am not talking about medical and scientific advancement, such as use of electricity per se, or heart surgery.

I say the meaningless technoloy that we surround ourselves with, does not enhance our love lives, our family relationships or our core values and emotional experiences in life. All these are what are important, not how fast we get to work or how quickly we can microwave a mechanically formed chicken burger.

In the speed we live our lives and perform our human activities - has a large amount of the quality of life been removed?

If technology is so great, why do so many flee it at the first chance. They go camping in the woods at the weekend, they go fishing or go and lie on a beach. Because this enhances their lives, because their lives are better and more enriched when they leave technology behind.

Wes,

This is true only if you believe that it is indeed the inevitable.
That technological development is inevitable, is merely a belief.

I disagree. I offer globalization as evidence. As natural resources because more scarce because of rising demand, technology allows more for less and will as such, be sought. It's the natural order.

Once more, you mix up time perspectives.

If we look at things IN RETROSPECT (and we see evolution and globalization, for example), then it APPEARS THAT THINGS COULD HAPPEN ONLY THE WAY THEY DID, ie. we say they were inevitable. But this is so only in retrospect.

If you insist that future globalization, for example, is inevitable, you are also insisting that humans are unable to make other choices than they presently do.

I assure you that I, and many others, are very much able to not buy hairdye.

1. Technological development depends on natural resources. Natural resources that modern technology utilizes, are not infinite. This cycle, as it runs now, will one day break.

That is ill-informed. First... my point above regarding efficiency, secondly, you're thinking too earth-bound. We'll get what we need elsewhere if we can't get it here. Such is the nature of demand. If we want it, we'll pursue it if it's apparently feasible to do so.

All fine and well.
While you offer a meta-economical explanation, you say nothing about the actual contents of this economy. (What fuel will we use when the oil runs out?)

What all such meta-explanation cause is that they make anything acceptable, as long as it fits the meta-explanation pattern. It's relativism.
If humans begin to fancy to live off of daisies, and they are entitled to this preference, then they will do so ... Similarly, you are willing to wager that it is reasonable to go to space to get resources for life on earth.

2. You assume that "the game" is an inevitable necessity, as if the players had no saying in it.

Do you have a say in having been born with two hands? What about which culture into which you were born? You can certainly change what you'll be later, but to what extent? I'd say that the current state of the species is VERY strong evidence that the players have their say, and it's "go".

This means that an individual lets himself be defined by his environment (social, economical, natural) and that this individual could not exist without this particular environment. Which also leads to question whether this individual has free will. If he is determined by his environment, then he has no free will, and is merely a cog in the system.

So much for modern "individuality" -- "Be special! Buy your cosmetics at XY!"

People could stop buying so many products they don't really need.

Ah, the idealism. Some people could, sure.

Why don't they?

Besides that, you don't change human nature, and this is all a manifestation of survival methinks.

Sure, but I think you are viewing this too broadly, you take refuge in the meta of it all.

As the struggle for day to day survival eases,

Not true. Look at the unemployment rates, the third world countries.

our minds provide material to keep the struggle going. Instead of struggling for a meal, we struggle for a hot-tub. Again, I think this is just the way it is.

For some people, this is a particular transposition of the survival instinct, yes.
They don't struggle for a meal, they struggle for a dinner at a fancy restaurant.

In short, they struggle for *meaning*.
Struggling for meaning is still the survival instinct, but when directed into the material possessions, it is bound to not come to satisfactory fruition.

People will always buy what they think they need, if they think they have the resources to do so. It's just that simple. It's pretty much that IMO, that drives this whole deal, but again it's just an extension of the need to survive as skewed into abstract space.

Sure, but again, you take refuge in the meta.

People buy all those things because they believe they will make their lives meaningful, better. And as it turns out that those things have to be bought over and over again, or renewed, they do not provide much meaning.

It's not the only way, but it's the most efficient to satisfy demand (even if that demand is planted by the perveyor of the product). If I can successfully create and satisfy a demand, my economic prosperity is gaurenteed. Given my desire to gaurentee my economic prosperity (as is the survival standard in modern life), I am motivated to engage in the process. Doing so adds a huge value to society via jobs, benefits, etc to the people who assist in creating, making and providing the product. Of course there is "opportunity cost", but such is the way of things. I can't have my cake and eat it too.

And the situation consumerism has now lead to is that if people had stopped buying all those things they don't really need, the economy would collapse.
Nowadays, as far as sheer economic exchange goes, people must spend, or they will lose their jobs.
It's absurd.

Then again, I'm the guy who did that thread about how economic principles, darwinism and humanity are all facets of the same thing.

The meta-approach is sometimes good for some things, but it is too general. It allowed you to confuse the material with the spiritual.

Our quest is to control our environment to ensure our survival. We are doing a damn good job IMO. Not perfect, but we're on the road. Hope we don't all die from it... but if so, I'd still rather have been on the road than sitting around doing nothing. That is a cause I would and may die for.

If you think that without all that technology, all you had left would be to sit around doing nothing -- then you thereby prove that you are a slave to modern live, and are *nothing* without technology.

LOL. It's my opinion that if you are susceptible to such messages as an adult, you deserve to believe them. Again though, I didn't say I need it... I said it's natural... it's inevitable.

If you believe so.

As with anything I can think of, there are facets of it I don't enjoy as much as others.

Then you are possibly making compromises in fields where you should not.

Regardless of either of our opinions on the matter however, the world moves on... and the players advance.

This is NOT true.

Everybody else on the planet can think this same way "Regardless of either of our opinions on the matter however, the world moves on... and the players advance", and many, very many indeed do. And it is this resignation and acknowledging one's own insignificance that makes modern consumerism what it is.

See, if a person thinks "An individual does not matter" this would be true on the global scale if this person were the only one who thought so, or if there were very few who think so.

But if the majority of people think "An individual does not matter" (and in the West, esp., this seems to be the case), this leads to a combined effect of "People do not matter", and this then becomes true for that society/state.

For example, an owner of an SUV and airconditioning who buys a lot of products and produces a lot of waste can think "Oh, but I am but one, what harm could I do?" and he gladly drives his SUV and creates a lot of waste. And on the grand scale, one such individual does not matter. There is little or no problem.

But if millions of people think "Oh, but I am but one, what harm could I do?" and each of them gladly drives his SUV and creates a lot of waste -- then they create a lot of waste, fill a lot of landfills. There is a BIG problem.

So if most people believe, like you, that technological progress is inevitable, this will indeed happen, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What each individual thinks, counts. It counts because human society is made of millions of such individuals. What society is is the combined effect of what the individuals are.
Society is not the consumer. The consumer is the individual. Each SUV is driven by one consumer, not by some abstract "member of society". This consumer can change his mind and not drive that SUV.

Originally Posted by water

What each individual thinks, counts. It counts because human society is made of millions of such individuals. What society is is the combined effect of what the individuals are.
Society is not the consumer. The consumer is the individual. Each SUV is driven by one consumer, not by some abstract "member of society". This consumer can change his mind and not drive that SUV.

Wes,

What water says here is true.

The worlds problems are beyond anyone’s control, if one looks at ALL the shit in ALL the world, one may well say "I cant change all this" and so adopt your attitude and do nothing and take no responsibility and accept and apparently inevitable outcome.

Though having just said that, no one person can change it all, it is also true that any change only comes from individuals making changes in their own lives, then through a very gradual 'ripple' process changes are affected throughout the world. This is the only way change has ever been affected in the world. The only difference is sometimes the ripple is faster / sometimes slower.

Now, though it is true we are all born in circumstance that are beyond our control, it is what we do with those circumstance that is the key. We can be a prisoner of circumstance or a master of circumstance, and it is this that is the purpose of life, more than just being content with ones lot and accepting the inevitability of it all. We should not be content just in raising ourselves above our circumstance but should be concerned with raising others above their circumstance too.

I will respond to you delusion goddamned hippies when I get a chance.

EDIT:

Okay, so first you are both incredibly presumptuous to think I do not value the individual. Being one, I value it greatly. Implying otherwise is insulting.

Secondly, the topic and hand is "meta" to begin with, as we're really talking about humanity's advancement, etc. So I do not "take refuge" there. Saying so is to ignore the topic.

And finally, for now... a simple question: If you claim to value the invidual so much, who the fuck are you to tell them what they should value?

- Oh, so it's just what they value that you don't value? "they" are okay, so long as what they value is present on your checklist of approved wants? Don't you think that's kind of disgusting? No? Maybe it's ME that's disgusting because my values/ideas aren't on your checklist? ?

???????????????????????????

What if your those who you told what they should value don't believe you?

You really should consider that the populous is in general, comprised of certain personality types..

For example, you have 10 neighbors. You have a meeting to show the errors of their consumeristic ways. While you may change the minds of 8 of them, 2 of them will simply not give a shit what you say, no matter how persuasive or logical you and the other 8 neighbors think you are. As such, what about the 2? Kill them? Live with them? What if they like technology? What if they invent it and show off to your neighbors how cool it is? What if then, your goddamned hippy propaganda horseshit no longer appeals to your neighbors as much, because they really want some of that cool tech that your 2 stubborn neighbors developed?

Are you gettin this?

(please note that this is the nature of the inevitability and mechanism behind the players advancing - this is nature, it's just how people work as they are, most likely within a few hundred years max, that will change to some degree... (which ironicially, will most likely be because of technology) but for now, this is the deal - while you personally may be able to escape it for some period of time... it eventually cannot be avoided as more and more people squeeze toward one another on the planet)

Wake up.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by water

What each individual thinks, counts. It counts because human society is made of millions of such individuals. What society is is the combined effect of what the individuals are.
Society is not the consumer. The consumer is the individual. Each SUV is driven by one consumer, not by some abstract "member of society". This consumer can change his mind and not drive that SUV.

Wes,

What water says here is true.

Two points:

First, then explain SUV sales. People have every opportunity NOT to buy them, but they do because they like and can get them.

Second: If not enough people bought them, they wouldn't exist... as economies of scale wouldn't allow for the reasonably priced manufacturing of them. Yet they are built. They are being built right now.

Oh and water, your comment about me "confusing time frames" or whatever is simply wrong. I was providing historical evidence as a model for future events. The "meta" of human history in terms of advancement has not changed for thousands of years. We will however, most likely eventually change this as a consequence of technological advancement. Advancements in technology change the playing field. Eventually, I think it will transcend itself... for better or worse.

EDIT:

You apparently do not acknowledge the following seemingly inescapable truth:

Technology is power, and power trumps hippy-speak.

It's more interesting to me actually, because technology is not just "power" per se as in "I control you", but as in power from the mind, into the world, shaping things that help control one's environment... which you may or may not be a part of. Fascinating stuff IMO.

First, then explain SUV sales. People have every opportunity NOT to buy them, but they do because they like and can get them.

Second: If not enough people bought them, they wouldn't exist... as economies of scale wouldn't allow for the reasonably priced manufacturing of them. Yet they are built.

I've actually read a few studies on this. They appear to buy them number one for a status symbol (keep up with the jone's) and two to feel more safe and secure.

I just think they are either Short or have shortcomings. But hey I drive a little VW around. I also use to ride motorcycles and have no fear of death. SUV drivers in my opinion tend to be sub standard, often doing things because they are in a larger vehicle. Such as cutting someone off. I think they feel invincible and don't really care about the people around them. They are the pond scum on the road if you ask me.

EDIT: This is intended to support of my assertions above regarding value and survival.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

to feel more safe and secure.

EDIT: Exactly

Abstraction of survival exposed. "I want to feel safe and secure, so I seek that which seems will offer higher probability of my survival".

You gonna turn that off?



Please, it's not the details of the SUV that have to be discussed, sure... maybe you can offer a better alternative, more efficient, blah blah, but that is DOING, not talking shit about what should be done. Design a better goddamned car if you think you can. If you do, your economic prosperity may well be gaurenteed.

Oh and Water, that you do not buy hair-die is dandy, but that you don't think others should either is really uhm... condescending. People's value is a function of their percieved circumstance. How do you know that they don't need it? You can't imagine circumstances under which it's to their advantage?

If technology is so great, why do so many flee it at the first chance. They go camping in the woods at the weekend, they go fishing or go and lie on a beach. Because this enhances their lives, because their lives are better and more enriched when they leave technology behind.

Then why don't they just stay there?

You'll find that those recreational activities are short in endurance because they are a difficult lifestyle to maintain compared with that of one with technology.

I see now a potential misunderstanding of my own fault.

Though I quoted you insanity in regards to your comments on SUVs, I wasn't directing that post at you... but instead to the comments from others that had preceeded it. In looking back, I see how you could have easily misconstrued the post, as I didn't indicate flatly that I was offering it as evidence to support my prior assertions. I just buzzed by thinking it obvious from the content of the post.

OK, I'm not worried about what happen. I've moved the parts that went off in a tangent to a holding area. Let's just continue the thread minus the non relevant parts.

Now I know that we need a means of wealth distribution, and this will always end up in a returning cycle as described above - but there are dozens of other cycles that we could engage in for wealth distribution other than the production of meaningless technology.

You chose the dead-end job you've just described above, hence you are part of the problem - be a part of the solution instead and stop complaining.

Technology and its advancement is an inevitable consequence of intellect (which BTW, allows for "indigenous tribes" to exist in pockets of seclusion), which is in turn a consequence of evolution... well, unless god told you something else I guess, in which case conversation is pointless.

Technology is self perpetuating and we can easily become its slaves.

Yes, quite right.

There has been a growing movement since the 1970's at least to go back to a simpler way of life. Technology has given us miraculous things to be sure, but if you look more closely at them, they are double-edged swords. Every real problem we have is someone's idea of a solution, even medicine. When we solve the problem of infant mortality, populations explode. With people living longer, there is a problem getting enough money to take care of the elderly. We invent labor saving devices, then buy exercise machines. We invent better transportation like airplanes, and they help diseases travel around the world, diseases that may one day cause worldwide epidemics. We use cars to get around, and then cover up any interesting places you might want to see with roads and parking lots, so we hide at home with theater systems getting fat. We eat food from factory farms which kills the soil, and drains scarce water resources.

Wes is right to some degree, this is an inevitable process, much like the downward spiral of a junkie. I wouldn't presume to tell someone else how they should live, but it may one day be impossible to go back to the way things were.

I've been reading the Foxfire series of books about the mountain people of appalachia, and it is fascinating how they lived. They made almost everything from scratch, from rifles and gunpowder to soap, clothing, and houses. This is true technology, and true freedom. Our technology that relies on consumer products is not sustainable. One lady was like 92 and she still rode her (32 year old) mule, who would do any kind of work you wanted. She was disturbed that the way of life she was used to was rapidly disappearing due to the rapid development of land.

Hippies know full well what the future holds, hallucinogens paradoxically reveal the true nature of the human situation, and furthermore, have been how spirituality was practiced for tens of thousands of years before the present patriarchal and disfunctional ideology of the Abrahamic religions. Sustainable technology like organic farming and bicycles will be the norm in the 21st century once the oil runs out. Only 50% of all the oil on the planet will ever be recovered.

So, what caused our descent into the cancer of consumer culture? I feel it is fundamentally religious. Christianity has perhaps unwittingly created an attitude that the world is here for our domination. And so we could dominate it out of existence. Thankfully, the finite supply of cheap energy is a natural limit to our arrogance.

But you are only a slave to it if you cannot command it. Technology is MY slave. That's its point in the first place. Reversal of roles comes to the technologically inept. I suspect this is the fear of the many.

Wes,

I will respond to you delusion goddamned hippies when I get a chance.

And you could not have assessed us more wrongly.

Okay, so first you are both incredibly presumptuous to think I do not value the individual. Being one, I value it greatly. Implying otherwise is insulting.

Of course you value the individual. But in a particularistic way, which reduces the cohesion within society.

Secondly, the topic and hand is "meta" to begin with, as we're really talking about humanity's advancement, etc. So I do not "take refuge" there. Saying so is to ignore the topic.

Yes and no. We'll see.

And finally, for now... a simple question: If you claim to value the invidual so much, who the fuck are you to tell them what they should value?

If they value the wrong things, things that are ultimately detrimental for them, this will bring upon them their demise.
People are unhappy because they strive for the wrong things.

- Oh, so it's just what they value that you don't value? "they" are okay, so long as what they value is present on your checklist of approved wants? Don't you think that's kind of disgusting? No? Maybe it's ME that's disgusting because my values/ideas aren't on your checklist? ?

???????????????????????????

What if your those who you told what they should value don't believe you?

Exactly. The reality of "everyone is an individual, everyone is special, everyone is different" is downright disgusting.
If everyone is different, they will not like eachother, period. Different people cannot happily live together. *That* is a hippy delusion.

You really should consider that the populous is in general, comprised of certain personality types..

And drown in the statistics.

Two points:

First, then explain SUV sales. People have every opportunity NOT to buy them, but they do because they like and can get them.

Why do they like them?

If you know what people truly need, you can sell them anything under the promise that this thing will bring them what they want.
"Want to be self-assured on a date? -- Buy deodorant XY!"
"Want to be important in society? -- A Mercedes is the car you must drive."
Etc.

They are buying SUV's for the wrong reasons. SUV's do not truly make them more happy, or help them live their lives fully or blah blah blah.
Or, well, some people are indeed so dumbed down that they believe owning those things will make them happy.

Second: If not enough people bought them, they wouldn't exist... as economies of scale wouldn't allow for the reasonably priced manufacturing of them. Yet they are built. They are being built right now.

Yes. It is the same problem as with genuine fur or caviar.
You offer people a kind of a holy grail, and they go after it, like the worst sheeple.

Oh and water, your comment about me "confusing time frames" or whatever is simply wrong.

We've had this before, not just once. Ex post and ex ante assessments. They do not give the same results.

You apparently do not acknowledge the following seemingly inescapable truth:

Technology is power, and power trumps hippy-speak.

For one, that truth is indeed only SEEMINGLY inescapable.

For two, this is not "hippy-speak".

The herd is already stampeding.

You can chase them around screaming that they're going the wrong way, presuming you know their destination...

or you can jump in the herd and try to help steer, doing your part to make sure they avoid the fate of the lemming.

Sounds to me like you've made your choice.

EDIT: maybe that was a stupid analogy. hmm. i can't decide.

Originally Posted by (Q)

If technology is so great, why do so many flee it at the first chance. They go camping in the woods at the weekend, they go fishing or go and lie on a beach. Because this enhances their lives, because their lives are better and more enriched when they leave technology behind.

Then why don't they just stay there?

You'll find that those recreational activities are short in endurance because they are a difficult lifestyle to maintain compared with that of one with technology.

ECONOMICS - thats why they dont stay there. Who wants to come back from a beach holiday in Barbados.

People have to work, they have to generate an income. There are not many jobs on the beach or in the woods. Sure we can sell icecreams on the beach for a while, but that wont pay the rent for long or provide enough to raise children. People come back because they have to , not because they want to. We pay a high price for choosing a non-tecnology life.

Originally Posted by (Q)

hence you are part of the problem - be a part of the solution instead and stop complaining.

Hang on - are you saying there is a problem? I thought you said everything was rosy and wonderfull in technology land.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

But you are only a slave to it if you cannot command it. Technology is MY slave. That's its point in the first place. Reversal of roles comes to the technologically inept. I suspect this is the fear of the many.

Well to use your own argument against you;
The onslought of technology is inevitable! The herd is moving etc.
If its inevitable, what part of it do you see yourself as controlling? IF what you say earlier is correct, you are as much part of the herd as the rest.

You cant have it both ways; either technology is self perpetuating and out of control, or you can control it and it is your slave, in which case it is not inevitable.

Which is it to be???

Originally Posted by wesmorris

And finally, for now... a simple question: If you claim to value the invidual so much, who the fuck are you to tell them what they should value? .

Or who are you? or who is anyone? should we all remain silent and keep our opinions to ourselves. Quick close the forum, Wes wants to stop the hippy propoganda escaping.

Did I ever say I want to prevent anyone from making their own choices - no.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

- Oh, so it's just what they value that you don't value? "they" are okay, so long as what they value is present on your checklist of approved wants? Don't you think that's kind of disgusting? No? Maybe it's ME that's disgusting because my values/ideas aren't on your checklist? ?.

Everyone is OK, I dont find anyone disgusting. How can I when we are all basically the same.

Yes we are all individuals but at the same time we are one humanity, and everything that happens on this planet affects every one of us.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

You really should consider that the populous is in general, comprised of certain personality types.. .

I do

Originally Posted by wesmorris

For example, you have 10 neighbors. You have a meeting to show the errors of their consumeristic ways. While you may change the minds of 8 of them, 2 of them will simply not give a shit what you say, no matter how persuasive or logical you and the other 8 neighbors think you are. As such, what about the 2? Kill them? Live with them? What if they like technology? What if they invent it and show off to your neighbors how cool it is? What if then, your goddamned hippy propaganda horseshit no longer appeals to your neighbors as much, because they really want some of that cool tech that your 2 stubborn neighbors developed?
.

No problem with this. Live with them all.

Whether its 2 that think like me or 8 that think like me , I will still form my own opinions. Maybe you are influenced by the other 8 - I am not.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

No problem with this. Live with them all.

Whether its 2 that think like me or 8 that think like me , I will still form my own opinions. Maybe you are influenced by the other 8 - I am not.

Sure. That's the point. People will do their own thing. Grossly, that results in advancements in technology. I'm glad you see the point.

While I think there are interesting arguments as to problems with the rate at which is does so, advancement is inevitable.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

No problem with this. Live with them all.

Whether its 2 that think like me or 8 that think like me , I will still form my own opinions. Maybe you are influenced by the other 8 - I am not.

Sure. That's the point. People will do their own thing. Grossly, that results in advancements in technology. I'm glad you see the point.

While I think there are interesting arguments as to problems with the rate at which is does so, advancement is inevitable.

I may indeed see your point (though do not agree), but I think you still dont see mine.

And you fail to answer (or dodge) my question, asked earlier
"You cant have it both ways; either technology is self perpetuating and (advances) out of control, or you can control it and it is your slave, in which case it is not inevitable.

Which is it to be???"

Or who are you? or who is anyone? should we all remain silent and keep our opinions to ourselves. Quick close the forum, Wes wants to stop the hippy propoganda escaping.

Did I ever say I wan1t to prevent anyone from making their own choices - no.

Okay, so this is my analysis. The only way to get your idea of fixing things to work is to make everyone believe it. Since you can't do that, and won't kill everyone who disagrees with you, your point is moot in the sense that there will be people who advance technology regardless of your objection. The only thing you can do with getting more people on your side is affect the rate at which it advances. That's where that came from "who are you to tell people..." blah blah. See what I mean?

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

No problem with this. Live with them all.

Whether its 2 that think like me or 8 that think like me , I will still form my own opinions. Maybe you are influenced by the other 8 - I am not.

Sure. That's the point. People will do their own thing. Grossly, that results in advancements in technology. I'm glad you see the point.

While I think there are interesting arguments as to problems with the rate at which is does so, advancement is inevitable.

I may indeed see your point (though do not agree), but I think you still dont see mine.

That I argue against it doesn't mean that I don't see it. It just means I don't agree. I think I understand what you're trying to get at, slaves, emptiness, down with corporations... blah blah. I just disagree for the most part. IMO, what is, is always a perfect expression of nature. Flawless. (Maybe I'd rather things be different and if so, that is perfect as well... and I'm free to try to implement whatever changes I desire, like making sure we don't all die and such) So generally I accept what is and look to understand why. Seems to me you're doing the opposite. You're looking at how things should be and wondering why they aren't.

And you fail to answer (or dodge) my question, asked earlier
"You cant have it both ways; either technology is self perpetuating and (advances) out of control, or you can control it and it is your slave, in which case it is not inevitable.

Which is it to be???"

I didn't intend to dodge it.

You're wrong is all. My comment about its invevitability is "meta". My comment about controlling it is personal to me.

Technology is MY slave. I didn't say it's yours. Perhaps you're technologically challenged, as many people are. Also, that it inevitably advances doesn't directly correlate to it being "out of control".

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Okay, so this is my analysis. The only way to get your idea of fixing things to work is to make everyone believe it. Since you can't do that, and won't kill everyone who disagrees with you, your point is moot in the sense that there will be people who advance technology regardless of your objection. The only thing you can do with getting more people on your side is affect the rate at which it advances. That's where that came from "who are you to tell people..." blah blah. See what I mean?".

No - not just the rate it advances but the way in which it advances;

It is not moot because people affect the way in which technology is used; the things it is used for.

There is a finite amount of resource on this planet. If we use A% of it for our technological toys it only leaves B% left for the other things in life. The smaller A% is the greater B% is able to become.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

(Maybe I'd rather things be different and if so, that is perfect as well... and I'm free to try to implement whatever changes I desire, like making sure we don't all die and such) So generally I accept what is and look to understand why. Seems to me you're doing the opposite. You're looking at how things should be and wondering why they aren't.".

"What is" IS because people accept that it is and just analyse why.

The only way to change something is to envisage how it should be and then make it happen. The same principal applies to the development of your precious toys.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Technology is MY slave. I didn't say it's yours. Perhaps you're technologically challenged, as many people are. ".

Far from it - I work in engineering design, technology surrounds me.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Also, that it inevitably advances doesn't directly correlate to it being "out of control".

Either we are controlling it or its out of control, those are the only two possible states.

1) If we are controlling it, we can change it, if we can change it , it is not inevitable.

2) If it is inevitable, we cannot change, we cannot change it, it is out of control.

which is it?


I say we can change how we and our society behave, there is no inevitability to technology. But if we do not change our childlike attitudes toward it we will lose control, damage our society, our evolution and the planets resources.

If oil is soon to run out on this planet - how do you want to spend the last of it? making toys for grown up boys?

No - not just the rate it advances but the way in which it advances;

The direction is controlled by the market. As oil supplies decrease, the market will demand changes.

It is not moot because people affect the way in which technology is used; the things it is used for.

People demand what is developed.

There is a finite amount of resource on this planet. If we use A% of it for our technological toys it only leaves B% left for the other things in life. The smaller A% is the greater B% is able to become.

Then why aren't you arguing for less people? Your argument is about what people want. You can educate people, but you can't change their nature. I don't think you can really change demand except through typical economic practice, like taxation, etc.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

(Maybe I'd rather things be different and if so, that is perfect as well... and I'm free to try to implement whatever changes I desire, like making sure we don't all die and such) So generally I accept what is and look to understand why. Seems to me you're doing the opposite. You're looking at how things should be and wondering why they aren't.".

"What is" IS because people accept that it is and just analyse why.

IMO, that's really quite backwards. What is IS because it is. Acceptance of what is does not lead to things being as they are. They are already that way. In an incredibly inter-related, complicated system like the world economy, I think it's dangerous to promote changes without understanding why things are as they are.

The only way to change something is to envisage how it should be and then make it happen.

Which should be precluded IMO, but the best possible understanding of what is, or you're playing with fire.

The same principal applies to the development of your precious toys.

The development of techologies are generally quite specific. The development of a specific product is not the same as changing facets of the ecomony that you don't understand. The very problem you're getting at is exaclty that, that products are developed with only consideration as to promoting them, without consideration to their potential negative effect on consumption of limited resources.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Technology is MY slave. I didn't say it's yours. Perhaps you're technologically challenged, as many people are. ".

Far from it - I work in engineering design, technology surrounds me.

Me too, good for us.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Also, that it inevitably advances doesn't directly correlate to it being "out of control".

Either we are controlling it or its out of control, those are the only two possible states.

1) If we are controlling it, we can change it, if we can change it , it is not inevitable.

2) If it is inevitable, we cannot change, we cannot change it, it is out of control.

which is it?

The market controls it. We control the market, but the market is bigger than us, and is an aggregate reflection of individual demand. Circumstance, perception, personality, will, etc. control individual demand. Looking at an aggregate for instance, approx. 10% of people in general stay calm when others panic. Can you change that? It's my opinion that while inviduals are just that, populations (and the demand they generate) are demonstrative of human nature, which cannot be changed. The 2 guys in the previous example may not always be the same two guys... but you can trust there will always be about those two.

As such, basically as the price of oil for instance increases, alternatives will be created by demand, which incites innovation. In other words, as an aggregate, we always wait until the last minute to finish our project. It's the nature of teh beast and ultimatley, the most efficient means of getting by. Until we are SURE we are almost out of oil, we can't risk the entire infrastructure (being the complicated system it is) of the economy trying to correct for it. The system itself basically dictates this.

I say we can change how we and our society behave, there is no inevitability to technology. But if we do not change our childlike attitudes toward it we will lose control, damage our society, our evolution and the planets resources.

Attitudes will change as reality requires them to, not because you think they should.

If oil is soon to run out on this planet - how do you want to spend the last of it? making toys for grown up boys?

That's not my decision. It will be spent as is most efficient for the whole, and could result in a humougous bummer. But unfortunately, there is no other way. I really, really hope that innovation will provide reasonable solutions. I'm completely unsure to be honest if it can. Regardless though, if oil is to run out and there is no solution, reality will correct the problem by reducing demand the hard way. I do agree with you of course that I hope it goes differently and it would be nice if people could plan better in this capacity, but I don't see it happening for the reasons I've stated.

IMO, one of the beautiful things things about the "free market" in general is that competition drives efficiency, and that technological advancement is geared toward exactly that.

In terms of economics, maximal efficiency can be equated to infinite resources because demand and supply become he same.

I would submit that the natural function of the technological revolution, per the above, is basically to provide an effective "infinite" resources - removing all effective caps that can be removed at any given time... and that now that it's in motion (as it's always been, though it's sped up immensely in recent history), there's no stopping it. You can nudge it one way or another, but there's no stopping the herd.

Is that control?

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Attitudes will change as reality requires them to, not because you think they should.
[.

And my attitude has changed, because reality is requiring it to do so.

Reality will change yours too in time, though you may fight it for a while longer if you wish.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Attitudes will change as reality requires them to, not because you think they should.
[.

And my attitude has changed, because reality is requiring it to do so.

Reality will change yours too in time, though you may fight it for a while longer if you wish.

*sigh*

You offer nothing here but a tone of superiority.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Attitudes will change as reality requires them to, not because you think they should.
[.

And my attitude has changed, because reality is requiring it to do so.

Reality will change yours too in time, though you may fight it for a while longer if you wish.

*sigh*

You offer nothing here but a tone of superiority.

A little bit of this, a little bit of that.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

.. Technology is self perpetuating and we can easily become its slaves.


(There is obviously purpose in medical science and certain other scientific endevour, but this is science - not the technology that I am talking about above)

slavery goes a lot further: "we" -- the mind -- is a total slave to the universe that is expanding just as fast as all thoughts that feed and create it, the mind, universe.

-- just thoughts

Originally Posted by kestasjk

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Attitudes will change as reality requires them to, not because you think they should.
[.

And my attitude has changed, because reality is requiring it to do so.

Reality will change yours too in time, though you may fight it for a while longer if you wish.

*sigh*

You offer nothing here but a tone of superiority.

A little bit of this, a little bit of that.

What I said applies to myself as well as VD or anyone for that matter. What she said applies only to me, taking a position of superiority and authority.