PDA

View Full Version : Technology Brings More Harm Than Good. >does it???<



Sherene
August 1st, 2005, 11:30 PM
Technology is the scientific use in practical ways in industries. it has no doubt, bring many conveniences to mankind. it has enable us to communicate easier and faster, get works done easily, so on and so forth.

but it cannot be denied that technology has caused damage to the environment. it has caused pollution, masive destruction to nature, and also cause imbalanced to the Earth's ecological system.

even so, without technology, we cannot survive. we would not be living in our comforts at home. but with technology, the human and Earth's livespan would not be very long.

my question to you, my freinds, is, does techonology bring more harm than good? or the other way round?

ShadowKnight
August 1st, 2005, 11:37 PM
Technology is the scientific use in practical ways in industries. it has no doubt, bring many conveniences to mankind. it has enable us to communicate easier and faster, get works done easily, so on and so forth.

but it cannot be denied that technology has caused damage to the environment. it has caused pollution, masive destruction to nature, and also cause imbalanced to the Earth's ecological system.

even so, without technology, we cannot survive. we would not be living in our comforts at home. but with technology, the human and Earth's livespan would not be very long.

my question to you, my freinds, is, does techonology bring more harm than good? or the other way round?

More good. Of course you have your pros and cons, all choices have consequences, some more positive than negative, others are not so positive. I think it's important to be efficient with our resources, and if we use technology correctly, we can avoid a lot of problems. But the system is truly better because of technology. Life is easier, simple machines, computers, all sorts of little helpers and stuff..

Snoop
August 2nd, 2005, 05:55 AM
Technology does not bring more harm than good. - but it's all subjective anyway. No one is forced to buy an automobile, a cell phone, etc...... if a majority of the people want a technological product, then the product must have some beneficial uses.

Environmentalists will have to keep up the pressure to maintain a balance between usefull and useless products - and how they are produced. Personally I could live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, but I can't change overnight - change takes time. In the future we may have reached a point of no return or we may have things under control. It all depends on how greedy we are.

KevinBrowning
August 2nd, 2005, 08:58 AM
You're right, I'd much rather be an ignorant, diseased serf, chronically malnourished and dead in my forties.

Meng Bomin
August 2nd, 2005, 09:31 AM
Depends on what the technology is and what you value. Normally, technology fixes more problems than it causes, but the problems caused are ones that are entirely new and take coping.

Ibelsd
August 2nd, 2005, 11:52 AM
Technology is the scientific use in practical ways in industries. it has no doubt, bring many conveniences to mankind. it has enable us to communicate easier and faster, get works done easily, so on and so forth.

but it cannot be denied that technology has caused damage to the environment. it has caused pollution, masive destruction to nature, and also cause imbalanced to the Earth's ecological system.

even so, without technology, we cannot survive. we would not be living in our comforts at home. but with technology, the human and Earth's livespan would not be very long.

my question to you, my freinds, is, does techonology bring more harm than good? or the other way round?

I think this has been highlighted by others, but there are several problems with this line of questioning, as well as, the baseline assumptions.
1. You begin by stating that damage caused by technology cannot be denied. I am denying it. You have made a serious set of claims and provided no evidence for these claims. Your claims contain enough hyperbole, "massive destriction," to warrant this. After all, one could reasonably conclude that if technology caused massive destruction to nature, then mankind would no longer exist.
2. Your second claim is that without technology man could not survive. Are you telling me that without cell phones and microwaves we would all be dead? Again, hyperbole without substantive support. Certainly, without technology we would not enjoy the comforts that such technology supplies. I hope that doesn't equate to immediate erradication.
3. Finally, you ask whether technology brings more harm than good. It is a fine question, but rather meaningless. More harm than good to who? By what value judgement? If someone is an earth firster who believes mankind should live off the land and that all inquire into science corrupts nature, then technology is bad. If a person values living in a house with indoor plumbing, technology is good. If one is talking from the perspective of a buffalo, then technology may be seen as very bad. You may want to narrow this down a bit.

From my perspective, technology is an expression of the mind and respresents the freedom of the individual. In addition, technology allows increased expression and even greater individual freedom. So based on the value of individual freedom, technology (in general) has been a great benefit to the world. Even when technology has been used for destructive purposes, such as the A-bomb, its applications towards other areas, like medicine, negate the negative ways it has been exploited. In addition, such technologies show the power of the human mind. Imagine a world without Einstein and Edison. It would leave mankind as barren intellectually as the absence of Bach or Beethoven would leave mankind's musical exploration a darkened void.

Bf55
August 2nd, 2005, 01:06 PM
Can i point out...... technology in itself did nothing it was the way humans used/ abused it? such as cars, wat if they were onyl used for long distance trips? :P

Xanadu Moo
August 3rd, 2005, 01:26 PM
Technology has improved our lives in matters of convenience, but has not improved the human condition overall. Our behavior hasn't changed for the better over the past few centuries. Technology causes our lives to be busier -- involved in more mundane activities with more mundane objects. Television is a great technology that has compromised our attention span and our interactivity with other people. It also infiltrates our home with nonstop promotional advertising.

Advertising itself lends the illusion that we should be in constant pursuit of contests in an attempt to win something that we didn't earn. It, like lotteries, gives us false hope that we might get lucky, and causes many people to focus on such frivolities.

Telephones have made it easier to contact people, but also made it easier to be contacted, thus invading our privacy. While we can choose to go without services like a telephone, we generally cannot rightly do so and function properly within a basic community setting.

Advanced modes of travel have made it easier to go long distances in a short time. But is there really an innate need for us to take so many trips to far-off places? Did people of the 1700s have such a need? Perhaps with the new technologies, we have created accompanying needs, which would mean that technology is also more demanding. Families are moving farther apart, which creates a niche for greater travel. If we just stayed closer together, we could accomplish the same thing and eliminate the middle man.

Technology is a mechanism for achieving something that might not have been necessary or even beneficial, but since it was not previously possible is therefore assumed to be progression.

Technology is represented by city life, while life before our current technology is represented by country life. Which people are happier? Are the city folk better off because they have more gadgets? What do these gadgets do for them that country folk don't already have? Do things faster, farther, with less effort? Are we turning into nothing more than very efficient machines? And are we always expecting more of them, never satisfied with the status quo?

Sure, on a physical level, technology is great. But on a socio-emotional level, it takes away about as much as it gives. It causes us to depend less and less on ourselves, and shifts the focus to form and away from substance. All the "white noise" created by technology makes it harder to think clearly. Despite technological advances, we're still desperately hanging on to our pastoral origins. A lawn and trees, bushes, flowers, etc., are more than embellishments -- they are often requirements to maintain sanity. We don't cling to bits of the past for sentimental reasons so much as we do to keep some semblance of the simple in order to survive in the midst of the utterly complex.

One positive social aspect of technology is that increased communications has deeprooted systems of government that are not for the people, and given the people more of a voice, so they have become less oppressed.

When I retire, I'd like to "get away from the things of man," as they say in Joe Versus the Volcano. And I don't mean a trip to an exotic location, but a permanent vacation where there are no tourists. Somewhere in Colorado or Montana would suit just fine.

Overall, that is a multi-layered question.

starcreator
August 19th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Technology is the scientific use in practical ways in industries. it has no doubt, bring many conveniences to mankind. it has enable us to communicate easier and faster, get works done easily, so on and so forth.

but it cannot be denied that technology has caused damage to the environment. it has caused pollution, masive destruction to nature, and also cause imbalanced to the Earth's ecological system.

even so, without technology, we cannot survive. we would not be living in our comforts at home. but with technology, the human and Earth's livespan would not be very long.

my question to you, my freinds, is, does techonology bring more harm than good? or the other way round?

HAHA! Oh, this is interesting. I had a debate last year where the affirmative could pick the subject and they lost almost immediately.

This was our argument structure, and they crumbled:

1. Technology is science applied to practical things.
2a. The use of friction to create fire is the use of technology.2
2b. The use of tools to gather food was the advantage humans needed to overcome animals, and was an application of technology.
3a. Without fire, humanity would have died out.
3b. Without food, humanity would have died out.
4. Therefore, without technology, humanity would have died out.

Apokalupsis
August 20th, 2005, 04:30 PM
Oooh, very nice. Keeps it simple, keeps it real. It would be interesting to see someone refute that approach. It'd be fun to try...but I don't think I could w/o putting a decent amount of time into it, so I won't. hehe

PerVirtuous
August 21st, 2005, 03:45 AM
HAHA! Oh, this is interesting. I had a debate last year where the affirmative could pick the subject and they lost almost immediately.

This was our argument structure, and they crumbled:

1. Technology is science applied to practical things.
2a. The use of friction to create fire is the use of technology.2
2b. The use of tools to gather food was the advantage humans needed to overcome animals, and was an application of technology.
3a. Without fire, humanity would have died out.
3b. Without food, humanity would have died out.
4. Therefore, without technology, humanity would have died out.

Very creative! Where is your proof that humanity would have died out without fire? Apes didn't die out and they don't have fire. Are we somehow less than them? I like the argument for it's simplicity and logic. It is the proof that is lacking. You prove we would not have survived without fire and I'll cave. Otherwise, no sale.

PerVirtuous
August 21st, 2005, 04:14 AM
Technology has improved our lives in matters of convenience, but has not improved the human condition overall. Our behavior hasn't changed for the better over the past few centuries. Technology causes our lives to be busier -- involved in more mundane activities with more mundane objects. Television is a great technology that has compromised our attention span and our interactivity with other people. It also infiltrates our home with nonstop promotional advertising.

I disagree. I have all the information of the internet available to me instantly from my home. I have google to sort it for me. This is not a convenience, this is an unbelievable resource. Information is power. Throughout history the ruling class kept strict reigns on information in order to keep the masses in check. Without information, who really makes the decisions? With unlimited information, it is truly I who decide what to think. This by itself is proof of the benefits of technology. Speaking from the point of view of an individual, this is the greatest time to live to date.


Advertising itself lends the illusion that we should be in constant pursuit of contests in an attempt to win something that we didn't earn. It, like lotteries, gives us false hope that we might get lucky, and causes many people to focus on such frivolities.

Advertising is a reflection upon the common person, not the controlling force of them. If people were different then advertising would be different. The string is there, you just have it wrong about which end was pulling which.


Telephones have made it easier to contact people, but also made it easier to be contacted, thus invading our privacy. While we can choose to go without services like a telephone, we generally cannot rightly do so and function properly within a basic community setting.

Again, this is information flow. It brings a community closer together. In days of old, those on the other side of town were strangers because you only saw them at church. Now you can call or email them. I am friends with you and you are a thousand plus miles away. Technology is good.


Advanced modes of travel have made it easier to go long distances in a short time. But is there really an innate need for us to take so many trips to far-off places? Did people of the 1700s have such a need? Perhaps with the new technologies, we have created accompanying needs, which would mean that technology is also more demanding. Families are moving farther apart, which creates a niche for greater travel. If we just stayed closer together, we could accomplish the same thing and eliminate the middle man.

You presuppose that this travel is for travel's sake alone and that there is no other reason. People move and travel for a great number of reasons. Most of them are reasonable and positive. I cannot see your logic here.


Technology is a mechanism for achieving something that might not have been necessary or even beneficial, but since it was not previously possible is therefore assumed to be progression.

There are side effects to every adaptation. So what? Language, by itself, has had a number of unforseen consequences. Should we abandon language as well? Your facts are not in dispute. Your reasoning does not make sense. If you are saying that we as a community are not making the necessary adjustments to accomodate the new technilogocal lifestyle, then fine. But, that is not a problem with technology. That is a problem with us.


Technology is represented by city life, while life before our current technology is represented by country life. Which people are happier? Are the city folk better off because they have more gadgets? What do these gadgets do for them that country folk don't already have? Do things faster, farther, with less effort? Are we turning into nothing more than very efficient machines? And are we always expecting more of them, never satisfied with the status quo?

Sorry to dissappoint you there young fella, but the technology of farming is exactly what allows for city life to exist. That is the backbone of social technology. As far as people being happy, we are not simply products of our environments. We are people. We can transcend environment with knowledge. Where and how we live is irrelevant. I am in the second least populated state and was raised in the least populated county in that state. I now live in the city. I can assure you that the country living and the city living are not as great a difference as you might imagine.


Sure, on a physical level, technology is great. But on a socio-emotional level, it takes away about as much as it gives. It causes us to depend less and less on ourselves, and shifts the focus to form and away from substance. All the "white noise" created by technology makes it harder to think clearly. Despite technological advances, we're still desperately hanging on to our pastoral origins. A lawn and trees, bushes, flowers, etc., are more than embellishments -- they are often requirements to maintain sanity. We don't cling to bits of the past for sentimental reasons so much as we do to keep some semblance of the simple in order to survive in the midst of the utterly complex.

I like this. But let's take this a step further. It is our interdependence that will eventually bring us to the next level. Technology is the glue that binds us together as a community. ODN is a community. There is more opportunity for community than ever before. What would a smart guy (let's say like you) in a rural community do with his mind even fifty years ago? Now, you can talk to PerVirtuous a thousand plus miles away and have access to another smart guy from a rural area. The ability to form communities using technology is only beginning. This will be the ultimate social change. This will redefine everything.


One positive social aspect of technology is that increased communications has deeprooted systems of government that are not for the people, and given the people more of a voice, so they have become less oppressed.

No comment.


When I retire, I'd like to "get away from the things of man," as they say in Joe Versus the Volcano. And I don't mean a trip to an exotic location, but a permanent vacation where there are no tourists. Somewhere in Colorado or Montana would suit just fine.

Overall, that is a multi-layered question.

We've got a few acres here for someone like you. It is exotic, though. So think about it first. Then C'mon up.

FruitandNut
August 21st, 2005, 04:46 AM
Technology like a lot of things to do with human endeavour has a positive and a negative face. It all depends on who you are and where you are whether you feel its upside or its downside. It can be argued that technology allows the population growth in humanity that ultimately nature will not be able to sustain. It can already be reasonably debated that large and densely populated cities are producing many problems that the authorities are struggling to address.

Apokalupsis
August 21st, 2005, 08:28 AM
Very creative! Where is your proof that humanity would have died out without fire? Apes didn't die out and they don't have fire. Are we somehow less than them? I like the argument for it's simplicity and logic. It is the proof that is lacking. You prove we would not have survived without fire and I'll cave. Otherwise, no sale.
Good approach too. But the problem is something you both may be missing. That is, like Perv pointed out, apes have survived and man is more intelligent and capable than apes...so why wouldn't man survive like the ape? Man probably would have survived.

However, the real issue is about technology either harming or helping mankind. Yes, we could have survived, like apes, and done a little better. But we would not be nearly as advanced of a civilization, have the technology that we have, education, health, transportation, efficiency, etc... without fire. Even primitive man in remote places, has fire. We would be beneath them.

So while homo sapiens would exist...man as we know it today, would not. We'd have more in common with apes, than we would with modern man.

I submit that this is a bad thing, not a good thing.

PerVirtuous
August 21st, 2005, 08:56 AM
Good approach too. But the problem is something you both may be missing. That is, like Perv pointed out, apes have survived and man is more intelligent and capable than apes...so why wouldn't man survive like the ape? Man probably would have survived.

However, the real issue is about technology either harming or helping mankind. Yes, we could have survived, like apes, and done a little better. But we would not be nearly as advanced of a civilization, have the technology that we have, education, health, transportation, efficiency, etc... without fire. Even primitive man in remote places, have fire. We would be beneath them.

So while homo sapiens would exist...man as we know it today, would not. We'd have more in common with apes, that we would with modern man.

I submit that this is a bad thing, not a good thing.

I concur. Lucky they weren't debating you and me or they'd have been obliterated.

starcreator
August 21st, 2005, 09:54 PM
Very creative! Where is your proof that humanity would have died out without fire? Apes didn't die out and they don't have fire. Are we somehow less than them? I like the argument for it's simplicity and logic. It is the proof that is lacking. You prove we would not have survived without fire and I'll cave. Otherwise, no sale.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oooh, very nice. Keeps it simple, keeps it real. It would be interesting to see someone refute that approach. It'd be fun to try...but I don't think I could w/o putting a decent amount of time into it, so I won't. hehe

That was the problem with the argument I had. It was simple, yes, but lacked substantiation. How does not having fire mean we'll die, in warm places? How does not having tools mean we wouldn't have food? If humans don't understand that creating fire is science, is it technology?

The bottom line in the argument, as I think Apok said, is that without the applied science for fire or tools, the applied science of logic and rationality in our decisions, and the applied science of language and linguistics for communication, we would live very primatively today. And with the lack of physical advantages we have (the average ape, I'd bet, could kill an unarmed intelligent human - nevermind those thousands of years ago) I'm not even sure we would be in existence, especially among animals who apply logical science without knowing it to their decisions. Then again we may have microevolved otherwise. I still don't think without using our brains to apply technology we would have become the dominant species. It's hard to tell - on that track, it's just speculation.

The question is, if we were still primitive, would the world be better? Would we be happier?

There are lots of ways to refute it, but in the end I think it comes down to the same thing and the case stands strong. The thing I found amusing at my debate is that the affirmative didn't question any of the weaknesses in the simple argument. They made admissions under cross examination up to point #4 and then realized it was too late to backtrack. Almost a forfeit. It was interesting.

Regards,

Star

Xanadu Moo
August 22nd, 2005, 10:50 AM
I disagree. I have all the information of the internet available to me instantly from my home. I have google to sort it for me. This is not a convenience, this is an unbelievable resource. Information is power. Throughout history the ruling class kept strict reigns on information in order to keep the masses in check.
But power improves human behavior how? Do you have any evidences that power has made us behave any better as a society?


Advertising is a reflection upon the common person, not the controlling force of them. If people were different then advertising would be different. The string is there, you just have it wrong about which end was pulling which.
But advertising isn't made to accommodate the public. It's made to reel in the public and dress things up to look better than they are. See also: diamonds.


You presuppose that this travel is for travel's sake alone and that there is no other reason. People move and travel for a great number of reasons. Most of them are reasonable and positive. I cannot see your logic here.
I would take the stance that travel is psychological, and that we created the "need" for it when we created greater modes of transportation.


If you are saying that we as a community are not making the necessary adjustments to accomodate the new technilogocal lifestyle, then fine. But, that is not a problem with technology. That is a problem with us.
I'm saying that technology hasn't advanced us socially. I suppose what I'm trying to say isn't that technology is bad, but that it's socially impotent, and if people think it represents social progress, then we're fooling ourselves and are in for some rude awakenings by relying on this technology for such an imaginary backbone.


I can assure you that the country living and the city living are not as great a difference as you might imagine.
Tell that to the homeless people. Tell that to the criminals. Tell that to the drug dealers. Tell that to those living in the slums. They know where the hotbeds of destitution are.


It is our interdependence that will eventually bring us to the next level. Technology is the glue that binds us together as a community. ODN is a community. There is more opportunity for community than ever before. What would a smart guy (let's say like you) in a rural community do with his mind even fifty years ago? Now, you can talk to PerVirtuous a thousand plus miles away and have access to another smart guy from a rural area. The ability to form communities using technology is only beginning. This will be the ultimate social change. This will redefine everything.
The problem I see with it now is that it is so impersonal. We're hiding behind senseless monikers (OK, mine has some meaning to it), and pretending to be all sorts of personas that we're not. Do you have any prescriptions for how the redefining of our relationships will eventually become more personal, or are you saying that they won't need to?

Some people in general assume by default that whatever a civilization aspires to and strives for is therefore for its own good. But the ways of the past aren't necessarily rejected on their merits. Everything is bound to go through cycles in every aspect of life. Styles fluctuate, we get bored of the status quo, we prosper, we decline. I would submit that throughout earth's history, even free societies many times did not have such a conscience -- we don't always know what's best for us. Take a look at the popular culture. If things like gambling are prevalent as they are, that's a bad sign for our social health. Look at all the diversions people turn to in an age of technology. Drug use is still rampant as ever. Smoking is still very common. Child porn and pedophilia are quite prevalent. I recognize technology's innovations, but what social problems has technology solved?

I would also argue that fire is not technology per se and its innovation is not directly part of the technology age. Its application came about long before the technology age.

starcreator
August 22nd, 2005, 01:57 PM
I would also argue that fire is not technology per se and its innovation is not directly part of the technology age. Its application came about long before the technology age.

Technology was not only used during the technology age, and to be technology something does not have to be from the technology age. We need to establish a common definition for technology, so I've retrieved one from Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: <TT>-jE</TT>
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -gies
1 : the science of the application of knowledge to practical purposes : applied science
2 : a scientific method of achieving a practical purpose —tech·no·log·i·cal <TT>/"tek-n&-'läj-i-k&l/</TT> also tech·no·log·ic <TT>/-ik/</TT> adjective

<!-- google_ad_region_end=def -->
<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #3f3f3f 1px dotted" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=src>Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/medical/aboutmwmed.html): <CITE>© 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.</CITE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


So any time we apply any knowledge to practical purposes, it is technology. Is the knowledge of how to create fire not applied in creating fire? Of course it is. It is therefore technology.

Humans have nothing but their brains. And in order to use our brains to overcome our lack of physical advantages, we must apply technology. If we do not use our brains to create technology, then we have lost our primary advantage over any other being on this planet.

Technology was always essential to our survival.

Xanadu Moo
August 22nd, 2005, 03:33 PM
Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: <TT>-jE</TT>
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -gies
1 : the science of the application of knowledge to practical purposes : applied science
2 : a scientific method of achieving a practical purpose —tech·no·log·i·cal <TT>/"tek-n&-'läj-i-k&l/</TT> also tech·no·log·ic <TT>/-ik/</TT> adjective

<!-- google_ad_region_end=def -->
So any time we apply any knowledge to practical purposes, it is technology. Is the knowledge of how to create fire not applied in creating fire? Of course it is. It is therefore technology.

Humans have nothing but their brains. And in order to use our brains to overcome our lack of physical advantages, we must apply technology. If we do not use our brains to create technology, then we have lost our primary advantage over any other being on this planet.

Technology was always essential to our survival.
Flshhlpppp-tapattticcca....
That's the sound of a definition getting looser and looser. I like the following description of applied science to clarify the dictionary version, and I'll raise you two experiments. It can be argued persuasively that what we know as science and technology doesn't go very far back into human history, possibly only a few hundred years. Otherwise, if we use the extreme loose definition you propose, doesn't the whole question become moot? If technology encompasses all of human history, then why even ask the question? Conclusion: It's not about the fire.

From Antiquity (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Classical+antiquity)* up to the time of the Scientific Revolution (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+Revolution), inquiry into the workings of the universe was known as natural philosophy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/natural+philosophy), but this included fields of study (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/study) which today have been divorced from science. The ancient people of Western civilization who we might think of as scientists may have thought of themselves as natural philosophers. In other cases, systematic learning about the natural world (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Nature) was a direct outgrowth of religion (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/religion), often as a project of a particular religious community. An account of the development of (natural) philosophy from ancient times until recent times can be found in Bertrand Russell (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bertrand+Russell)'s History of Philosophy.

One important feature of "pre-scientific" natural philosophy is a reluctance to engage in experiment (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/experiment). For example, Aristotle (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Aristotle) is one of the most prolific natural philosophers of antiquity (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/antiquity). He made countless observations of nature, especially the habits (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/habit) and attributes (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Abstraction) of plants (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/plant) and animals (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/animal) in the world around him, which he devote considerable attention to categorizing (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/categorization). He also made many observations (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/observation) about the large-scale workings of the universe, which led to his development of a comprehensive theory of physics in his missives of the same name.

But Aristotle did not make predictions (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/prediction) in the way that modern scientific theories are expected to. His approach was to observe nature, to use deductive reasoning (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/deductive+reasoning) and inductive reasoning to explain everything, and to use his natural observations to illustrate his explanations (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/explanation). For example, he developed a version of the classical theory of the elements (earth (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Earth+%28classical+element%29), water (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Water+%28classical+element%29), fire (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fire+%28classical+element%29), air (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Air+%28classical+element%29), and aether (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/aether)). In his theory, the heavier elements (earth, water) had a natural tendency to move toward the center of the universe (what we would now call the center of the Earth (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Earth)), and the lighter elements a natural tendency to move away from it. (Aether was what celestial bodies (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Astronomical+object) - e.g. planets (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/planet) and stars (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/star) - were supposedly made of.)

Aristotle could point to the falling stone, rising flames, or pouring water to illustrate his theory. His laws of movement (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/movement) hypothesized that friction (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/friction) was an omni-present phenomenon - that any body in motion (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/motion) would, unless acted upon, come to rest. He also proposed that heavier objects fall faster, and that voids (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/void) were impossible.

But until the time of the Scientific Revolution (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+Revolution), these theories were never really tested experimentally. At the time, the utility of experiment was unproven. Some believed that setting up artificial conditions in an experiment could never produce results that described nature as it was in the world around them.

*-Antiquity means different things:

Generally it means "ancient history", and may be used of any period before the Middle Ages. <LI style="MARGIN-LEFT: 10pt" type=circle>Most commonly it means the classical antiquity of Greece and Rome.
It may also be used to refer to various periods of ancient history, like Ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia or other early civilizations of the Near East.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pre-experimental+science

KevinBrowning
August 22nd, 2005, 03:45 PM
Technology=the use of nature to assist humanity. Technology brings both privileges and responsibilities. We now have the ability both to access almost any information we want in an instant (the Internet), and to destroy our own race (atomic bombs). Obviously it is our choice that determines the outcome, and not the existence of technology itself.

starcreator
August 24th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Flshhlpppp-tapattticcca....
That's the sound of a definition getting looser and looser. I like the following description of applied science to clarify the dictionary version, and I'll raise you two experiments. It can be argued persuasively that what we know as science and technology doesn't go very far back into human history, possibly only a few hundred years. Otherwise, if we use the extreme loose definition you propose, doesn't the whole question become moot? If technology encompasses all of human history, then why even ask the question? Conclusion: It's not about the fire.

From Antiquity (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Classical+antiquity)* up to the time of the Scientific Revolution (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+Revolution), inquiry into the workings of the universe was known as natural philosophy (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/natural+philosophy), but this included fields of study (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/study) which today have been divorced from science. The ancient people of Western civilization who we might think of as scientists may have thought of themselves as natural philosophers. In other cases, systematic learning about the natural world (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Nature) was a direct outgrowth of religion (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/religion), often as a project of a particular religious community. An account of the development of (natural) philosophy from ancient times until recent times can be found in Bertrand Russell (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bertrand+Russell)'s History of Philosophy.

One important feature of "pre-scientific" natural philosophy is a reluctance to engage in experiment (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/experiment). For example, Aristotle (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Aristotle) is one of the most prolific natural philosophers of antiquity (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/antiquity). He made countless observations of nature, especially the habits (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/habit) and attributes (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Abstraction) of plants (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/plant) and animals (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/animal) in the world around him, which he devote considerable attention to categorizing (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/categorization). He also made many observations (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/observation) about the large-scale workings of the universe, which led to his development of a comprehensive theory of physics in his missives of the same name.

But Aristotle did not make predictions (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/prediction) in the way that modern scientific theories are expected to. His approach was to observe nature, to use deductive reasoning (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/deductive+reasoning) and inductive reasoning to explain everything, and to use his natural observations to illustrate his explanations (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/explanation). For example, he developed a version of the classical theory of the elements (earth (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Earth+%28classical+element%29), water (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Water+%28classical+element%29), fire (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fire+%28classical+element%29), air (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Air+%28classical+element%29), and aether (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/aether)). In his theory, the heavier elements (earth, water) had a natural tendency to move toward the center of the universe (what we would now call the center of the Earth (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Earth)), and the lighter elements a natural tendency to move away from it. (Aether was what celestial bodies (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Astronomical+object) - e.g. planets (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/planet) and stars (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/star) - were supposedly made of.)

Aristotle could point to the falling stone, rising flames, or pouring water to illustrate his theory. His laws of movement (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/movement) hypothesized that friction (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/friction) was an omni-present phenomenon - that any body in motion (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/motion) would, unless acted upon, come to rest. He also proposed that heavier objects fall faster, and that voids (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/void) were impossible.

But until the time of the Scientific Revolution (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+Revolution), these theories were never really tested experimentally. At the time, the utility of experiment was unproven. Some believed that setting up artificial conditions in an experiment could never produce results that described nature as it was in the world around them.

*-Antiquity means different things:

Generally it means "ancient history", and may be used of any period before the Middle Ages.
Most commonly it means the classical antiquity of Greece and Rome.
It may also be used to refer to various periods of ancient history, like Ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia or other early civilizations of the Near East.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pre-experimental+science


I'm sorry, Xanadu, but you'll have to explain your position to me again. I interpreted it as your saying that we have to define technology as something used within the last 200 years or this debate would be moot. Well, sorry, Xanadu, but you'll have to create a new thread for that one - "technology in the last 200 years has done more harm than good" - because we can't redefine something to strengthen a debate.

Bottom line: The word is technology. We'll use the definition provided by Merriam Webster, not freedictionary.com. And if that means that this debate is a moot point then perhaps it shouldn't have started. Or perhaps people should concede before we debate with incorrect terms.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I await your clarification.

Star

PerVirtuous
August 25th, 2005, 02:07 AM
But power improves human behavior how? Do you have any evidences that power has made us behave any better as a society?

Power allows each individual the ability to explore more options. Even if they make bad decisions, the information about the better decision was there and available to them. As for being better as a society? Define better? Pretty subjective concept. Let's just say that society has more opportunity for improvement than ever before. If people do not take advantage of this it is certainly not the fault of technology.



But advertising isn't made to accommodate the public. It's made to reel in the public and dress things up to look better than they are. See also: diamonds.

Advertising does indeed accomodate the public. How could they use subliminals if people don't already have the subliminal impressions they are using? Politics does the same thing. It plays upon who people are and what they want. As far as reel people in, a story, play, musical composition, poem, movie, and a debate does exactly the same. Such is the nature of communication that it is manipulative. So what.



I would take the stance that travel is psychological, and that we created the "need" for it when we created greater modes of transportation.

That does not address the issue you made before. Besides, why shouldn't we consider all of our resources when determining how to live? If it is available, why not use it. Your argument is like saying, "It exists, therefore it is bad." You have to do better than that.



I'm saying that technology hasn't advanced us socially. I suppose what I'm trying to say isn't that technology is bad, but that it's socially impotent, and if people think it represents social progress, then we're fooling ourselves and are in for some rude awakenings by relying on this technology for such an imaginary backbone.

It has made us all intellectual equals potentially, which is a great social equalizer. The next powerful force in the world could even come from Oregon!



Tell that to the homeless people. Tell that to the criminals. Tell that to the drug dealers. Tell that to those living in the slums. They know where the hotbeds of destitution are.

Such places existed long before we had the technologies of today. This argument is silly.



The problem I see with it now is that it is so impersonal. We're hiding behind senseless monikers (OK, mine has some meaning to it), and pretending to be all sorts of personas that we're not. Do you have any prescriptions for how the redefining of our relationships will eventually become more personal, or are you saying that they won't need to?

Me? Hiding? Pfhawrw! You make assumptions for which you have no data. It is interesting to do so, but worthless in a debate. The universe is a completely impersonal place. When the sun has its next big explosion and kills almost all life on this planet, I, for one, will not feel insulted or take it personally. Data is not of a personal nature. You are now into a realm where technology is irrelevant. The data can assist us to become more spiritual, but you are changing the argument. It is a meaningless change.


Some people in general assume by default that whatever a civilization aspires to and strives for is therefore for its own good. But the ways of the past aren't necessarily rejected on their merits. Everything is bound to go through cycles in every aspect of life. Styles fluctuate, we get bored of the status quo, we prosper, we decline. I would submit that throughout earth's history, even free societies many times did not have such a conscience -- we don't always know what's best for us. Take a look at the popular culture. If things like gambling are prevalent as they are, that's a bad sign for our social health. Look at all the diversions people turn to in an age of technology. Drug use is still rampant as ever. Smoking is still very common. Child porn and pedophilia are quite prevalent. I recognize technology's innovations, but what social problems has technology solved?

Servitude based on ignorance. That's good enough for me, but there are many more. My neighbors won't break into my house to steal my food. They are not starving. This is the first time in history you haven't had to worry about that.


I would also argue that fire is not technology per se and its innovation is not directly part of the technology age. Its application came about long before the technology age.

Either way, there is no real argument to be made there.

CC
August 25th, 2005, 05:44 AM
little town north of me....lot's of quakers......too bad they do not own computers or we could get a much closer look at what a lack of technology would be like.............anyone know any quakers?............:O)

Snoop
August 25th, 2005, 07:04 AM
little town north of me....lot's of quakers......too bad they do not own computers or we could get a much closer look at what a lack of technology would be like.............anyone know any quakers?............:O)
Actually, my brother married an Amish girl - is that almost the same?

They don't have a computer or an answering machine (at least none that I know of) - they never even heard of a beeper when that was in use either. Cable TV - nah. They still use vinyl records on a turntable!