|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 6, 2005 21:52:39 GMT 1
Agree or disagree?
"I would argue, though, that most new technologies, with the exception of those associated with weaponry, have had hugely beneficial effects for most people extending our capabilities and indeed our lives to an extent that our ancestors could not have imagined and I believe that we are only at the beginning.
The cycle of technological change grows faster. Compared with the sailing ship how brief was the longevity of the steam engine, let alone the vinyl gramophone record. What will be the next cycle, and how will it emerge? I hope it is clear by now that I am convinced that it is technology that shapes our lives and that its influence is paramount and is only going to increase as time passes. It is time that we in Britain, so good at fundamental science also came fully to appreciate the intellectual challenge behind product development. We seem culturally unable to realise that this can be more challenging than fundamental science and requires the very best minds. In my view this has already been grasped in India and China which in my view is pleasing because after all technology is the means by which the developing world can increase its standard of living but if we do not join the race to advance technology we face serious consequences not least that we will fall behind in our own intellectual, social and material development."
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Apr 6, 2005 22:00:13 GMT 1
Agree, now wheres that form for a Masters in Media Studies relating to the History of Art and Advertising whilst being a succesful DJ and B list celebrity course ;D
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Apr 6, 2005 22:06:11 GMT 1
The late Carl Sagan once said.......
"The problem with technological development is that we have developed the means to destroy ourselves many times over,without the means of saving ourselves from the ultimate catastrophe"
Or something very similar.
I always remembered it from his pioneering TV series Cosmos.
His words affected me profoundly and I nearly entered the Priesthood..........but chose The Riverside instead.......
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Apr 6, 2005 22:58:12 GMT 1
Apparently humans living as hunter-gatherers in the days before we switched to agriculture were extremely healthy and generally, barring accident, lived out their natural lifespans to a decent age. They were not affected by epidemic illnesses, had good eyesight and didn't suffer dental cavities. Then we started to switch to agriculture which enabled much denser static populations - more people with more time on their hands (not needing to search for food) meant power and technological development. Those that remained hunter-gatherers were killed or forced to more remote areas. Those that lived in the agricultural societies suffered epidemic illness and generally poorer health probably due to poor carbohydrate-based diet. Life expectancy became much shorter. Such problems were if anything worsened by the industrial revolution which served to further increase population density. Modern technology, it could be argued, is merely redressing problems which through changes in our lifestyles we brought upon ourselves anyway. And at what cost to our environment?
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 6, 2005 23:20:22 GMT 1
The thing about technology is you can't pick and choose. The telephone is a great thing but it didn't come on its own - it came on the back of a whole swathe of technologies, and a whole swathe of further technological occurrences have followed it.
I think technology and the technological society has been a disaster for the human race. And tonight's lecture (transcript available on the bbc website) is a stark example of the technophile's case for applying yet more technology to the world's problems, i.e. the medicine isn't working because the dosage hasn't been large enough.
I do agree with two points in the passage I have quoted:
"I believe that we are only at the beginning."
"I am convinved that it is technology that shapes our lives and that its influence is paramount and is only going to increase as time passes."
If we join the race we face serious consequences.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Apr 6, 2005 23:29:46 GMT 1
....the technophile's case for applying yet more technology to the world's problems, i.e. the medicine isn't working because the dosage hasn't been large enough. Completely agree Sean. This is exactly the reasoning Bush gives for the US not adopting the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas emissions. It'll hurt the US economy too much, he says. The correct solution to our environmental problems, he argues, is to develop more environmentaly friendly technology. I have perhaps over simplified what he says but then what he says is naiively over-simplistic anywayl.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Apr 6, 2005 23:36:14 GMT 1
The thing about technology is you can't pick and choose. The telephone is a great thing but it didn't come on its own - it came on the back of a whole swathe of technologies, and a whole swathe of further technological occurrences have followed it. I think technology and the technological society has been a disaster for the human race. And tonight's lecture (transcript available on the bbc website) is a stark example of the technophile's case for applying yet more technology to the world's problems, i.e. the medicine isn't working because the dosage hasn't been large enough. I do agree with two points in the passage I have quoted: "I believe that we are only at the beginning." "I am convinved that it is technology that shapes our lives and that its influence is paramount and is only going to increase as time passes." If we join the race we face serious consequences. Personally Im glad for technology, it makes my life comfortable. I dont have to worry for shelter, food, water and warmth. I have enough spare time for spirituality if i wanted it. Never underestimate how hard life would be if you had to wing it on your own in the wild. I think most of us would last a few days. Society with its collective roles is a truely impressive acheivement. We live in exciting times. Think of the enriching mental stimpulation we all have - better than spending your time picking berries and hunting deer and finding some safe water to drink. At the end of the day if you dont want part of it you can always join a hippy comune in Goa PS the biggest technological invention with the most benefit to man in the 20 th century was......the flushing lavatory ;D
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Apr 6, 2005 23:40:21 GMT 1
Completely agree Sean. This is exactly the reasoning Bush gives for the US not adopting the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas emissions. It'll hurt the US economy too much, he says. The correct solution to our environmental problems, he argues, is to develop more environmentaly friendly technology. I have perhaps over simplified what he says but then what he says is naiively over-simplistic anywayl. Intersting DEFRA have produced a recent report on how we are finally seeing the "de-coupling" of economic growth with environmental harm. Never underestimate how we as consumers can influence industry, although there is a huge role for Governments to play as well.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Apr 6, 2005 23:46:40 GMT 1
Never underestimate how we as consumers can influence industry, although there is a huge role for Governments to play as well. Yes, the situation with ozone eating CFCs in aerosols showed how consumers can effect change - but such a concerted non price-conscious effort on behalf of consumers is rare. I believe it will take strong government action to bring about the kind of changes we need to stop the destruction of the environment we are currently witnessing.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 7, 2005 8:55:44 GMT 1
The thing about technology is you can't pick and choose. The telephone is a great thing but it didn't come on its own - it came on the back of a whole swathe of technologies, and a whole swathe of further technological occurrences have followed it.
I think you normally find today that the majority of technological advances have come through research conducted for use within the 'military'? In the USA, vast amounts of money is provided to the Pentagon each and every year by the government. The reason they give is that this money is necessary to fight the war against terrorism (once it was the communism). However, its a means to get the American tax payer to fund research which ultimately goes to help large corporations...as the research conducted is eventually used to produce items that can be sold to and used by the general public. So this trend is set to continue and continue...perhaps not because we need these new and fascinating technologies but because we live in a consumer age...and as things are the economy is dependant on it...
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Apr 7, 2005 9:27:29 GMT 1
we will all be dead in x years so why worry?
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Apr 7, 2005 21:35:03 GMT 1
Did the speaker give examples of new products developed in India and China? I can't think of any.
The principle effect of technology over the last 50 years has been to free women from domestic drudgery - the washing machine, hoover, reliable contraception, the microwave, the dishwasher, synthetic fabrics.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 7, 2005 22:33:18 GMT 1
The idea that primitive societies worked 24/7 to provide the means of subsistence isn't correct. It would also not be correct to suggest that these things are provided for in modern society without effort.
The proliferation of technology has led to a division of labour such that people have very little control over, e.g. their economic well-being. Instead these are in the hands of individuals and organisations that are geographically and socially removed from us - even on an international scale.
The result is a fracturing of local communities because of their increasing irrelevance as economic units.
If anything modern people are over-stimulated - seemingly being incapable of doing nothing - they have to be watching TV, listening to radio or music, or reading.
Given the massive technological changes over the period of only a few centuries the technophiles need to make the case for the current situation sitting comfortably with the environment that the evolutionary process has adapted human beings to operate in.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 8, 2005 0:00:15 GMT 1
If anything modern people are over-stimulated - seemingly being incapable of doing nothing - they have to be watching TV, listening to radio or music, or reading. I am pretty happy doing nothing (although I would probably have the radio on if that was an option . Technology is something we use to suit ourselves - I get round to it eventually, I finally bought a microwave in January, but I still don't have a mobile phone. I bought this PC two and a half years ago, but it is only a toy really. I am not really sure what point is being made; you can't uninvent something, so technology moves on and you use what you want. "I used to only want but now I need" The Buzzcocks 1977. Not sure why I put that but it seemed relevant ;D
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Apr 8, 2005 7:17:46 GMT 1
The Goblin Teasmaid - marvellous
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 8, 2005 8:05:35 GMT 1
If anything modern people are over-stimulated - seemingly being incapable of doing nothing - they have to be watching TV, listening to radio or music, or reading. I think you mean 'distracted' our kid, just as 'they' want you to be...
|
|