Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

CNN's "Welcome to the Future"

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.
Post a reply

Re: CNN's

Unread postby shortonoil » Wed 29 Mar 2006, 22:49:55

It is quite ironic, that on the cusp of the collapse of our present civilization, that we can pursue a heated discussion on the value of extending human life span. This definitely supports the hypothesis of Cosmides & Tooby that the human mind resulted as a consequence of millions of years of adaptive evolution to the enviroment of a hunting/gathering creature. The effect of this is that the ephemeral nature of human civilizations is the result of the fact that “our modern skulls house a stone age mind”. To discuss the merits of our grandchildren extending their life span is so completely incongruous with the present situation that it appears ludicrous. Our caveman minds appear to continue to be limited to the next hill or bush that may cloak the predator that will eat us.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA
Top

Re: CNN's

Unread postby ThunderChunky » Thu 30 Mar 2006, 05:57:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '&')quot;Open your eyes and look around you. Do you really feel we are succeeding in making a better life for us and our children?"

My eyes are open. And I see what is possible with the future of science and technology. Technology offers us the best chance to alleviate problems with our population growth, pollution of the environment, and consumption of natural resources. If you need examples, I can help you out. As a l33t computer guy, you probably don't need that help. So tell me, why do you not see the potential in computer, biological, and nanotechnology research? I try to read about these advancements every day, but I can't even keep up with all the headlines. That's how fast things are going.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ghog', 'I') am hearing alot of "maybe" which doesn't make me feel very secure. Technology has been generally unable to keep up with Nature. We have examples of this ranging from Medical to Environmental. --snip-- It is ironic to the people that care how we are going back to 'the old way' of doing things. Ways we thought we had improved on with our superior technology. Technology cannot make up for human nature.

Ah yes. I suggest you read Jared Diamond's "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" it's an excellent read. Unfortunately we are still paying for that mistake today. But even before agriculture, humans were adapting through technology. Our species would likely be extinct if not for fire, tools, or clothing. As stated above in this post, technology can solve the major problems facing humans today and at the same time it can improve our quality of life. Let me ask you think would you rather be dumped into a jungle hunter-gatherer society right now, or are would you rather sit behind your computer in your comfy home? What would the majority of people pick? How do you think a hunter-gatherer would choose?

Humans are both destructive and constructive. On a whole I would say we are constructive as applied to our own species and destructive to other species. However, future technologies will gives us the option to live more harmoniously with nature...

Science and technology are driven by the economy, but the reverse is also true. If you look at the globe today the western nations have the highest standards for pollution control. Recently, even China has raised its environmental standards as the standard of living of the people ("quality of life") has increased. Who's going back to the "old ways"? Certainly not I, or you who uses a computer. I suppose the Amish have.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ghog', 'S')omeone would be well served to watch this:
Didn't watch the whole thing, but I know MCR and he is no scientist. Mr. Bartlett is. I have viewed his hour long lecture before, it is good. I am not for exponentially increasing the human population, we need to slow the growth down as much as possible, most wetsern nations with advanced technology have less growth. This does not conflict with longer lives. In fact, Africa as a continent has a very low standard of living and very low life spans, yet their popultaion is increasing faster than Europe. I would prefer a low birth rate low death rate society of a high birthrate high death rate one.
User avatar
ThunderChunky
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: CNN's "Welcome to the Future"

Unread postby Doly » Thu 30 Mar 2006, 07:25:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ghog', '
')The real maybe is whether humans (some more than others) can change their destructive ways. It could be with or without technology at this point, but since so few are doing anything, why would we expect things to change?


It will happen, because there isn't any other option. It will happen soon and thoughtfully, or it will happen later and after a few disasters. And it will happen with technology, again because there isn't any other option. There aren't any people right now on Earth that aren't using some kind of technology. We can discuss about what kind of technology you would prefer to use, and many people on this forum is doing that. But you can't argue that it will be with some technology.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ghog', '
')Technology cannot make up for human nature.


No, but it can adapt to human nature and compensate for its failings, or it can make it worse. It all depends on the way systems are implemented.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: CNN's

Unread postby Ghog » Thu 30 Mar 2006, 10:27:00

I hear you both, but 'hear' where I am coming from.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et me ask you think would you rather be dumped into a jungle hunter-gatherer society right now, or are would you rather sit behind your computer in your comfy home? What would the majority of people pick? How do you think a hunter-gatherer would choose?

I would choose whichever gives me a better quality of life, not a supposedly better lifestyle. As of now, of course I would choose "my comfy home". Ask me after the potential consequences of PO (starvation, poverty, crime, death, etc) and I may choose differently. I am not fighting the 'right' technology, just the minds behind it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')umans are both destructive and constructive. On a whole I would say we are constructive as applied to our own species and destructive to other species. However, future technologies will gives us the option to live more harmoniously with nature...

The first line I agree with. The second is where we differ. We are just as destructive towards our own species as we are to any other. Our technologies have allowed us to kill each other more efficiently and that doesn't speak well for technology moving us forward. In your attempt to blindly support technology as the savior, you forget we have been using more tech in the last 50 years than throughout the rest of history. Funny how we haven't used it "to live more harmoniously with nature'. What guarantees we will do so now?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ho's going back to the "old ways"? Certainly not I, or you who uses a computer. I suppose the Amish have

This was referring to people looking at solar and wind energies as future renewables. We had this 'technology' in the past and now we are going back to it. People are now rediscovering many 'old school' ways of doing things, so much so that there is a whole forum dedicated to it. (Planning for the Future) Ironically, these ways were all but eliminated by technology, yet we are now seeing the true results of 'effectiveness' and 'environmentally friendly'.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') would prefer a low birth rate low death rate society of a high birthrate high death rate one.

In short, so would I. Who gets to control the switch? I do believe we have a like mindset as far as technology is concerned. Where we differ is in implementation. Technology alone will not save us. The Human factor is the key and so far we have been too greedy to show any hope of changing. Technology can allow us to 'save' some of the only lifestyle most of us have ever known, but the right people need to be in charge. As of right now, worldwide, there are too many obstacles (Governments, Religions, Activists, Special Interest Groups, etc) to believe they can all agree on how. So where does that lead us? To wars, death, famine and poverty. In our fight to fix the problems of the world, our technology will allow us to kill each other and destroy the world a little bit more.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut you can't argue that it will be with some technology.
I didn't think I was. I thought I was saying technolgy alone won't save us.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, but it can adapt to human nature and compensate for its failings, or it can make it worse. It all depends on the way systems are implemented.
I thought that was what I said previously, but I guess I was too vague.
Technology isn't the problem, people are!! Technology in the wrong hands makes it worse. Technology isn't 'good' just because it is discovered.
User avatar
Ghog
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon 18 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania
Top

Re: CNN's "Welcome to the Future"

Unread postby Ingenuity_Gap » Thu 30 Mar 2006, 14:41:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ThunderChunky', 'M')y eyes are open. And I see what is possible with the future of science and technology. Technology offers us the best chance to alleviate problems with our population growth, pollution of the environment, and consumption of natural resources. If you need examples, I can help you out. As a l33t computer guy, you probably don't need that help. So tell me, why do you not see the potential in computer, biological, and nanotechnology research? I try to read about these advancements every day, but I can't even keep up with all the headlines. That's how fast things are going.


I see a lot of potential in technology. But I also see the dangers.

I didn't say technology per se is the problem. Technology in the hands of humans is, especially because things are going so fast, are getting too complex and too fast paced to control. And what are we doing about it? We are making them worse by adding more complexity (technology) and more speed to the turbulent mix we already have.

That's why I said that technology is not the solution, not because technology is bad, but because we already have enough of it and it's definitely not making things better.

We think we can fix our problems, but what we don't realize (or we don't want to acknowledge, for whatever reasons) is that our problems are huge, extremely complex and have an unpredictable behavior.

We are still thinking like cavemen, we have no long-term perspective. We can't see the intricate complications of our actions.

We raise our life expectancy. What a wonderful thing! But we get a lot of (un)expected side-effects: an aging population suffering from countless diseases, not apparent before the industrial revolution, putting a lot of pressure on our social security and medical systems, a booming overall population that creates never-ending social, economical and environmental problems.

Let's see what technology, oil, antibiotics, plus the human factor can do:

Instead of hunger, disease, poverty, low lifespan and wars we now have overpopulation, pollution, environmental degradation, resource depletion, Alzheimer, epidemic cancer, epidemic obesity, failing medical and social security systems, atomic, chemical and biological weapons, resource wars, hunger, poverty etc.

I honestly don't see things improving. On the contrary, all we have done was to multiply our problems by increasing our lifespan.

Of course right now we cannot solve our problems without technology, unless we want to suffer a drastic reduction in population or an acceleration of pollution and environmental degradation. We are addicted to technology, we went too far.

If we want to put the fire off, the last thing we need is more gasoline.
"The world is becoming too complex and too fast-paced to manage." - Thomas Homer-Dixon
User avatar
Ingenuity_Gap
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Right place, wrong time
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron