The Direction of Technology: Progress or Social Decadence?		May 27, 2009, 7:34PM
	by: Sgath topic: Technology bookmark this article view bookmarked articles go to archives
I have heard the argument before that science is dangerous, including all sorts of fear based and paranoid theories. One of the less irrational suggests that science may begin to expand so quickly that humans beings lose the very basis of their natures and society collapses or undergoes unwanted and rapid change(such as artificial intelligence, eugenics, total virtual addiction, etc). Is the slowing of scientific progress a viable option concerning the risk associated with more information, or will that information serve to mature our species and grant more wisdom of the universe around us? Sometimes I think the advance of science has very little to do with the wisdom of the public at large. The majority of humanity accepts as false many of the core foundations of scientific progress in the modern age such as quantum physics, evolution, and cosmology. Yet society continues to rely more and more on the very concepts which the majority of people ignorantly reject. With advances in weaponry and information exchange, does rapid technological change serve humanity as a whole when considering the history of and future possibility of destruction?

flourescentXdeath

People do not seem to handle too many thoughts or alternate perceptions well. They don't know how to form a "big picture" that suits their personal perception and leave it at that. They seem to fall into one of three categories: Insanity, denial, or misanthropic. They become overwhelmed, staunchly opposed to all new thought, or become indifferent or even upset with the possibilities. I know this is a generalization, but it's not too far off. Humans need technological/scientific evolution and a better introspective grasp on their psyches in order for the change to benefit us as a whole. The problem is with the people who are too slow to evolve with the rest. I hate to involve social darwinism into an innocent question, but that may be what it boils down to, if things are to be as efficient as possible. Most normal people just aren't efficient enough. *Shrugs* ------ Oh my beautiful liar, Oh my precious whore, My disease, My infection; ♥ I am so impure. ♥ May 28, 2009, 10:27AM

Ashmedi

People are genetically predisposed to being cowardly; this is a condition that can destroy a person's integrity if left unchecked. Fear is a necessary part of life, but you can't abide someone who lives by it. These people must be either repurposed or made submissive. Cowards tend to ignore all of the questions that science opens the floor for, because time and again the revelations to these questions have shaken the comfort bubbles of these cowards. Not many people can live by merit. Reality's mission is to advance to newer and more sophisticated states, where information flows abundantly and awareness reaches evermore unprecedented heights. The Internet is an obvious evolutionary step for humans, for instance. The elite will become post-human one day, further entrenching their place in the hierarchy, or maybe roles will be shifted because some of these current rulers are shallow, opportunistic cowards. Maybe only the tech savvy atheist spiritualists will embrace the post-human transformation, making them gods among men. ------ We make decisions, not choices. - Ashmedi May 28, 2009, 12:06PM

conduit

Is this more about technological advancement? Or scientific discovery in general? I think that as with anything science carries both risks and advantages, neither of which outweigh the other imo. Thus scientific advancement may be considered somewhat of a paradox, in that it is both beneficial and disastrous at the same time. Also your second paragraph is more of a complex social issue that relates to education. In the end our individual struggle takes priority over scientific awareness. So when you realise that much of the world is still impoverished and just trying to survive day by day then its easy to see why the advancement of scientific ideas is largely restricted to the privileged, or rich nations. Even in western nations new ideas take a long time to filter down through mainstream society. So you're probably right that science is only held in high regard by a select few, the niche of humanity, while the majority of society are destined to just carry on doing what they're doing, only occasionally taking notice if it affects them directly. ------ [I]~we are a part of the process not instigators of its progress~[/I] May 28, 2009, 12:40PM

DXMisthedevil

there is theory that suggests that science will advance so far that a substance or technological advancement so great will be accomplished/created that it will be the 'anti-god' and that it will essentially be so powerful that have such destructive capabilities that humans will essentially destroy each other completely with it bringing about a new age kinda cyber-apocalypse... but it is only a theory May 28, 2009, 9:32PM

Gremz

DXMisthedevil you mean the Allspark? ------ This room's gonna be my grave and there's no one who can save me... May 29, 2009, 5:23AM

DXMisthedevil

i don't think so, iosn't that the gimmick for the plaot in Transformers....? i was talking about the theory that technology will ultimately be mankinds undoing... but if you wanna talk similar storys in which that would be part of the plot think The Matrix, Code Geass, and most recently Angels and Demons May 29, 2009, 5:48AM

DXMisthedevil

or maybe even Neon genesis evangilion May 29, 2009, 5:49AM

Solstafir

well humans dont last forever but machines can last quite alot longer if made right. our society itself is based upon a human economy. humans need money so if they all get laid off and replaced by robots the economy is screwed. technology should not replace humans. also what about inventions like the remote another way of not getting off the couch because it means excercise. the more automated we become the more like sheep the human race becomes. if we expect to keep our human natures then technology should be used sparingly. we lose strength when we allow technological decadence to overwhelm good human practices. machines were created to serve us because unlike slaves machines are not living and dont have feelings unless programed to. we may get things done faster and more efficiently but in the grand scheme of things it should be because we are better not because we have a bunch of machines. it feels like cheating to me. ------ when darkness falls and the night is cold i will wander with her in my heart and as the sun rises into the sky my heart will soar with her May 29, 2009, 7:46AM

Solstafir

also i dont think that technology can prove or disprove the existence of god if humans knew how to do that it would be with religion. i dont think humans have what it takes to get to that super technological advancement and since we all die anyways if there is an apocalypse i doubt very much weather technology will matter when we are all dead. i also doubt very much that technology can create a god just as it cannot take the place of one in the duties of spirituality. science and technology are not the answer they are merely a helpful crutch we are unfortunately stuck with the good news is all the options are open even if the side effects are not so good. ------ ich liebe mein niedlich Engel May 29, 2009, 7:53AM

DXMisthedevil

ahh see but that also depends on a personal opinion or point of view, some could argue that they know that the soul lasts forever and machines being tangible/carnal/physical only will deteriorate away in time just like our bodies but i do agree shame on the inventor of the remote, and someone should kill the guy who invented the segway or however you fucking spell it.. but we are getting way to ahead of ourselves.. things like freeze dried cubes of already mixed alfredo sauce: drop in pan melt and bam instant laziness-wtf or the conveyer belt sidewalk: how unhealthy can you get? May 29, 2009, 8:02AM

pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Add Signature?