by culicomorpha » Sun 25 Nov 2007, 18:19:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')If you really hate technology all that much, you're really gonna hate nano-technology, because we have barely scratched the surface of nanoinventions and discoveries. And nano-technology strains credulity, because the physical laws governing the quantum level are so utterly different than physical laws that govern the world which we intuitively comprehend. Who knows what ocean of invention awaits us there?
Carlhole,
I think you're helping to make my point. Nanotechnology, just like all the other technologies we implement, are touted for their supposed "benefits." Any costs: economic, health, social, ethical, whatever, these are thrown to the wayside. These costs are commonly ignored completely in risk analyses. Test data is commonly secret and not made available to the public. Preliminary nanotechnology testing has already shown rather dramatic skeletal defects in fish, so what do manufacturers do? They add these materials to cosmetics. Wonderful, huh? Nice to test out new technology on women and then don't bother telling them that they are really test subjects.
I consider people that hold this very lopsided view of technology as "technological positivists." (Not an ad hom, just a descriptive term) I find the attitudes and beliefs to be a close parallel to cornucopians around here, in that there is a patterned blindness to acknowledging certain unpalatable facts. i.e. that we are educated to be ignorant of the consequences of technology.
But a few paragraphs that are very relevant to the discussion of legitimacy of conscious purpose came to mind*:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Consciousness ... is organized in terms of purpose. It is a short-cut device to enable you to get quickly at what you want; not to act with maximum wisdom in order to live, but to follow the shortest logical or causal path to get what you next want, which may be dinner; it may be a Beethoven sonata; it may be sex. Above all, it may be money or power.
But you may say: "Yes, but we have lived that way for a million years." Consciousness and purpose have been characteristic of man for at least a million years, and may have been with us a great deal longer than that. I am not prepared to say that dogs and cats are not conscious, still less that porpoises are not conscious.
So you may say: "Why worry about that?"
But what worries me is the addition of modern technology to the old system. Today the purposes of consciousness are implemented by more and more effective machinery, transportation systems, airplanes, weaponry, medicine, pesticides, and so forth. Conscious purpose is now empowered to upset the balance of the body, of society, and of the biological world around us. A pathology - a loss of balance - is threatened.
G Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Conscious Purpose Versus Nature. p. 433-4. 1972.
You are trying to argue what we have much to gain from these new technologies, and I am trying to argue that we have already lost much because of them. At what point do we stop putting all our efforts and energy into increasing the efficiency by which we saw away at the tree of life? The warning of Pandora's box seems more and more real to me every day.
So what I am saying is that it is possible for a technological development, such as this exoskeleton, to be incredible useful in fulfilling specific conscious purposes of interest to humans, but that does not mean that it should be done. In fact, I will go further and suggest that you will see these sorts of things used for all sorts of "legitimate purposes" before you will see terminators on the street. But this is the direction the research is going, so expect to see it eventually, notwithstanding pstarr's objections about power. (which seem legitimate at the moment)