Human Ingenuity - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

WildMan · #46 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

LMAO

That is hardly the "most likely scenario." You're romanticizing.

It is more than most likely - it is inevitable. At current rates large swathes of the human population will revert to a relatively primitive subsitence lifestyles while a few elite will continue to overconsume and live in apparent luxury behind fortifications.

Foreseeable science won't divert the masses from this fate as the much vaunted plundering of the solar system is unattainable. Dramatic and surprising advances are the only hope on this front.

Donkey_Left · #47 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008

Global warming + Alaska = Problem solved.

Speedyer · #48 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

So what do you think will happen when we no longer have enough land and resources to maintain this global civilization that we currently experience?

Well, seeing as we're a ways off from that happening in the first place, why does it matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Do you think technology will somehow make limits disappear? Is that not 'romanticizing' technology?

I don't think anyone is questioning whether they're are limits to resources, but the idea that we can't manage the world we have now without killing off a great number of the human race to benefit the earth is silly. I honestly think that if we're reasonable human beings, we can co-exist with our only home without reverting to a world of the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Is human ingenuity going to 'save us'?

No, humans giving a damn about conserving this world is going to save us. Of course that's a hard sell, humans rarely do anything for anyone except the present generation. Like I said, we're a very selfish species. Even when it is in our own interest to work together to not go too far in again screwing the only natural home we have.

drgoodtrips · #49 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

A couple of things to think about while considering the human use of and reliance on technology and our ecological predicament:

The history of technological advancement in human culture is directly related to and proportional to the rate and degree of the human ecological destruction of the planet. Its not the other way around as some people seem to believe.

We use technology to make money, money is made by exploiting the earths resources and damaging the earths life support systems, and we need to make money in order to continue developing technology. Its a self-destructive loop that is difficult to escape from. Placing ones faith in technology to somehow 'save' the earth completely ignores the history and nature of technological development in human civilized culture.

A similar paradox arises with improvements in efficiency. Any gains we make in efficiency will be matched by increases in consumption. This is the history of the 20th century explosion of hi-tech gadgets. We could not have computers, TV's, stereos, dishwashers, etc... if we did not make huge gains in efficiency, but here we see that each individual in a developed society is consuming way more per capita in the 2000s than their parents or grandparents could ever imagine consuming. This is a result of gains in efficiency.

All that being said, i think technology is human. Human beings evolved and survived on this planet by employing technology from the most basic use of language and writing all the way up to todays computers. We should not hate technology or seek to destroy it. Technology is a fundamental aspect of humanity, that will never change.

The problem is not technology. The problem is cultural and economic in nature. We are living in a system that seems to believe in fantasies. I.e., Resources are infinite, endlessly growing economies are possible and desirable, the earths life support systems do not apply to humans, and we will necessarily end up in some star trek type scenario where we dominate and exploit the entirety of the universe. That is the problem. And that is what needs to change.

We can embrace technology, but we need to see the world with some sense of reality and morality that is completely lacking in the contemporary world view.

I would say that technology and profit motive are not intrinsically linked, though I will grant you that the lion's share of technology is developed in order to make money (with some exceptions, including technology designed to annihilate other humans more quickly). But this all stems from a more base desire - people invent to better their own situation. In our societies, more money means a better situation and inventing means more money. It has become an institution lately for governments to incentivize particular types of ingenuity with grants/tax breaks, for the sake of invention for social conscience. You also have things like NASA that are purely intellectual pursuits without immediate payoff for the ingenuity - it isn't as if NASA is exactly profitable, but it carries on the human spirit of exploration.

There has been a house of cards built on non-sustainable (we think) resources like oil because of the "free lunch mechanical advantage" aspect. We like things that have stored energy and give us something for nothing. But my point here is that I think humans will conceive of ways to shift to sustainable (or else new, unsustainable) sources of energy, without really missing a beat. I also think that we'll be able to engineer methods of living our lives that reduce the destructive impact we have on our environment via direct technological interference. That is, we'll solve our problems with more advanced technology, rather than the abandonment of technology.

drgoodtrips · #50 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Also, I was reading through the same popular science magazine again this morning, and I saw something that is definitely a discussion starter. Forgive my lack of details, but there was only a half-page blurb on it. Apparently, in February, they started using a device that turns trash in landfills into oil and natural gas by somehow releasing hydrocarbons in the trash. They said it creates 18 times as much energy as it uses in the process and it reduces the volume of the trash in the landfills by 65%. I realize that this doesn't address any CO2 problems, but it definitely seems like a net benefit, given all of its advantages. There was no mention of the expense or how quickly and how much oil it could generate.

drgoodtrips · #51 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I find it mildly interesting that you can't read.

I never preached such a thing at all in that post. I only asked what was wrong with the way they lived. It's sustainable and seems quite adequate to me, and in many cases superior to the way we live. So what is wrong with it? Is it because they aren't christians? They aren't consumers? What is wrong with them that it would be oh so horrible to live like they did? Or at any rate, how are we better?

Andrew

There's nothing "wrong" with how Native Americans lived, but there seems to be some kind of perception that they have a noble outlook somehow. They certainly made technological advances - it wasn't a stagnant culture. They also used technological advances that were introduced to them from outsiders. My point is that they didn't have available technology and decide to eschew it - they didn't have the technologies that created destruction of environment. I'm pretty sure that they eventually would have created the same sort of society that we did.

And, the standard of living and life expectancy was significantly lower than what we have. Sure, they came up with clever ways to manipulate their environment, but I'll take air conditioning, speedy transit and sterilized operating rooms any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

soot · #52 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

A couple of things to think about while considering the human use of and reliance on technology and our ecological predicament:

The history of technological advancement in human culture is directly related to and proportional to the rate and degree of the human ecological destruction of the planet. Its not the other way around as some people seem to believe.

We use technology to make money, money is made by exploiting the earths resources and damaging the earths life support systems, and we need to make money in order to continue developing technology. Its a self-destructive loop that is difficult to escape from. Placing ones faith in technology to somehow 'save' the earth completely ignores the history and nature of technological development in human civilized culture.

A similar paradox arises with improvements in efficiency. Any gains we make in efficiency will be matched by increases in consumption. This is the history of the 20th century explosion of hi-tech gadgets. We could not have computers, TV's, stereos, dishwashers, etc... if we did not make huge gains in efficiency, but here we see that each individual in a developed society is consuming way more per capita in the 2000s than their parents or grandparents could ever imagine consuming. This is a result of gains in efficiency.

All that being said, i think technology is human. Human beings evolved and survived on this planet by employing technology from the most basic use of language and writing all the way up to todays computers. We should not hate technology or seek to destroy it. Technology is a fundamental aspect of humanity, that will never change.

The problem is not technology. The problem is cultural and economic in nature. We are living in a system that seems to believe in fantasies. I.e., Resources are infinite, endlessly growing economies are possible and desirable, the earths life support systems do not apply to humans, and we will necessarily end up in some star trek type scenario where we dominate and exploit the entirety of the universe. That is the problem. And that is what needs to change.

We can embrace technology, but we need to see the world with some sense of reality and morality that is completely lacking in the contemporary world view.

BTW, What is wrong with living like the Indians? It sounds completely sustainable and adequate to me... and far more meaningful than being just a servant/consumer as we have mostly become.

Andrew

Been reading much Ted Kaczynski?

Andrewl · #53 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by soot

Been reading much Ted Kaczynski?

Never have, no.

The ideas i offered here were influenced by various sources.

Andrew

Dilettante · #54 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

There's nothing "wrong" with how Native Americans lived, but there seems to be some kind of perception that they have a noble outlook somehow. They certainly made technological advances - it wasn't a stagnant culture. They also used technological advances that were introduced to them from outsiders. My point is that they didn't have available technology and decide to eschew it - they didn't have the technologies that created destruction of environment. I'm pretty sure that they eventually would have created the same sort of society that we did.

And, the standard of living and life expectancy was significantly lower than what we have. Sure, they came up with clever ways to manipulate their environment, but I'll take air conditioning, speedy transit and sterilized operating rooms any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Not to mention the cultural side of things. Not that our culture is "better" than theirs, but we have more of it. Museums, television, movies, libraries, touring concerts, traveling exhibits, and, of course, the internet provide access to a veritable buffet of cultural options. Inspired by Chinese culture? You can decorate, dress, speak and read Chinese; it's all available to you. Or, heck, you can go to China and live it. Or, you can just occasionally enjoy their food and mix-and-match cultures as you see fit.

That kind of expanded cultural experience and choice exists only because of the technological progress that allows us to so seamlessly overcome geographical boundaries, and our ability to do so at relatively negligible expense is derived primarily from the global economy.

If you were a Choctaw, prior to the arrival of Europeans, you spoke Choctaw, ate Choctaw, dressed Choctaw and lived Choctaw. Your cultural experience was almost wholly limited to variations within one tribal culture. Some alternative cultural experiences might, on occasion, intrude from neighboring tribes (though, in all likelihood, the difference wouldn't be terribly noticeable), or creep with agonizing slowness and immense alteration from distant people groups, but for the most part your cultural world was isolated by the limitations of communication, transport and commerce.

Personally, I think my ability to sit in America, eating Chinese food while chatting in Spanish with friends in Germany about how Greek philosophy relates to Hinduism demonstrates how much we would lose, culturally, in a regression to agrarian tribalism. Yet that side of things never seems to come up.

soot · #55 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Never have, no.

The ideas i offered here were influenced by various sources.

Andrew

Google the term: Unabomber's Manifesto

You have much more in common with America's most ellusive serial killer then you might think!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unabomber's Manifesto

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster
for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of
those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have
destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have
inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

Seriously, check it out. The UNABOMBer had views not alltogether dissimilar from your own.

You're not blowing people up or anything like that, are you?

Donkey_Left · #56 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by soot

Google the term: Unabomber's Manifesto

You have much more in common with America's most ellusive serial killer then you might think!

Seriously, check it out. The UNABOMBer had views not alltogether dissimilar from your own.

You're not blowing people up or anything like that, are you?

Whoa whoa whoa... total non sequitur, or strawman, or whatever the appropriate fancy argument term is in this case.

Some of us are perfectly capable of criticizing the fundamentals of society without blowing shit up.

drgoodtrips · #57 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

The fallacy is called "Guilt By Association"

hermanboo · #58 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

The fallacy is called "Guilt By Association"

Maybe in your absurd logic bizarro world, brain-spewer.

Most of the rest of us know better.

SomeMarine · #59 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I'll address the whole post in more detail later, but I wanted to point something out quickly.

In my OP, this sort of sentiment is what I was referring to when comparing some conservationist philosophy with the "spiritual" component of the US conservative philosophy - a romanticizing of a time and/or lifestyle that may not be very realistic and is based largely on spirituality or superstition.

Even Indians don't live in TPs and shit on the ground anymore. They don't rely on horses for transportation, and damn sure enjoy their TVs just as much as any other American.

SomeMarine · #60 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

BTW, What is wrong with living like the Indians? It sounds completely sustainable and adequate to me... and far more meaningful than being just a servant/consumer as we have mostly become.

Andrew

because for one thing, with six billion people on the planet, the trees won't last for very long, and there would still be wars over water and other natural resources.

If it is such an ideal way to live, how come Indians don't still practice it?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode