The Limits of our Society

@dharma bum,

I think you miss the target by calling out science. All science is supposed to be is a process to explain observations about the world and universe. It is not that we have unnecessary science, but rather, have found many unnecessary uses for scientific discoveries. Much of the technology we have created is destructive towards life, which is absurd when you think about things in terms of life quality and survival.

You do begin to describe what is wrong with society implicitly though. The issue is not science and technology, but rather values. The problem is that what society has come to value is destructive to the well-being of society. Only by revaluing values can true progress at the societal level be realized.

0 Replies

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;105712 wrote:

Technologically speaking, we have more now than we could possibly ever want. Why are we still trying to progress and grow and expand?

I cannot even imagine why you would say such a thing, let alone how you would even know such a thing. It might have been something someone would have said 500 years ago, and with the same justification. We do not know yet how to cure cancer, or heart disease, or Altzheimer's, or Hunt's disease, and that is only a part list. We do not know how to eliminate famine, or earthquakes which bring untold misery. We have not even begun to explore space. I could go on and on.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106606 wrote:

We do not know yet how to cure cancer, or heart disease, or Altzheimer's, or Hunt's disease, and that is only a part list. We do not know how to eliminate famine, or earthquakes which bring untold misery. We have not even begun to explore space. I could go on and on.

And what happens when we do have all those things cured? When we have Mother Nature controlled under our will?

What happens when suffering ceases to exist?

We need suffering in the world. Without suffering, we have no comparison to know that we are happy. In order to appreciate something (life, happiness, good health), we must have a recent memory of the way our lives were without those things.

The way we use technology does not account for this fact. On our current road, it's only a matter of time before all diseases are cured (at least for those who can afford it.) It's only a matter of time before we colonize other planets. It's only a matter of time before we discover a scientific theory explaining how life was created. I just hope my life is over by the time these things occur.

1 Reply

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;106633 wrote:

And what happens when we do have all those things cured? When we have Mother Nature controlled under our will?

What happens when suffering ceases to exist?

We need suffering in the world. Without suffering, we have no comparison to know that we are happy. In order to appreciate something (life, happiness, good health), we must have a recent memory of the way our lives were without those things.

The way we use technology does not account for this fact. On our current road, it's only a matter of time before all diseases are cured (at least for those who can afford it.) It's only a matter of time before we colonize other planets. It's only a matter of time before we discover a scientific theory explaining how life was created. I just hope my life is over by the time these things occur.

Probably it will be. But I still have no idea why you are opposed to curing cancer or heart disease. Very peculiar. I can suppose only that you, or anyone you care about, has not been seriously ill.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106640 wrote:

Probably it will be. But I still have no idea why you are opposed to curing cancer or heart disease. Very peculiar. I can suppose only that you, or anyone you care about, has not been seriously ill.

Then you would be surprised to know that in my 17 years, I have seen many of my close family members suffer diabetes, skin, prostrate, and lung cancer, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, dementia, strokes, and death.

And I can say, truthfully, that witnessing these experiences has made me cherish the fragility of life, and to cherish all others, for their lives are equally as fragile.

If everybody lived forever, you would never have the incentive to be with them, or to say sorry to them, or to love them. Why talk to your father today when he'll be around tomorrow?

If we cure cancer and other such diseases, we will be nothing but apathetic towards life. As a society, we are already apathetic towards most things, even when there is still suffering in the world.

1 Reply

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;106646 wrote:

If everybody lived forever, you would never have the incentive to be with them, or to say sorry to them, or to love them. Why talk to your father today when he'll be around tomorrow?

If we cure cancer and other such diseases, we will be nothing but apathetic towards life. As a society, we are already apathetic towards most things, even when there is still suffering in the world.

Well, that is pure speculation. But even if it is true, I'll take it. I am sure that even so, we'll still have enough trouble to make you happy. Especially if they do not affect you. Maybe it would be a good thing to pose the question to someone who is dying in agony from cancer, and ask him whether he would not rather be apathetic without it, and regret not having cancer. You might get an entirely different perspective on the matter. Purely abstract thinking so often leads straight to unadulterated absurdity.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106653 wrote:

Well, that is pure speculation. But even if it is true, I'll take it. I am sure that even so, we'll still have enough trouble to make you happy. Especially if they do not affect you. Maybe it would be a good thing to pose the question to someone who is dying in agony from cancer, and ask him whether he would not rather be apathetic without it, and regret not having cancer. You might get an entirely different perspective on the matter. Purely abstract thinking so often leads straight to unadulterated absurdity.

You make good points. It's clear that my premise needs revision.

However, there are many people who have died from cancer happily and at peace.

Firstly, let me make clear a distinction between joy, suffering, and actual happiness. Joy is caused by something pleasant, suffering is caused by something unpleasant. Happiness is what occurs when you find the balance between the two.

Therefore, a physical suffering does not have to make somebody an unhappy person.

Perhaps it is more wise to say that to be happy is to experience suffering and joy without struggle. Struggling with suffering leads to unhappiness.

The way to prevent struggling is either to be happy with your life, or to have hope and faith that you will recover.

For example, let's say an elderly man is dying of cancer. Let's say his life has been lived well, he's brought happiness to many people, his children love him. He should have no problem dying happy. Now, if the man has done bad things, harmed others, he will certainly not be happy. Regret for his deeds will cause him to struggle to keep his life, to repent for his actions.

Now, in contrast, let's say a child is inflicted with the same disease. He would have a much harder time not struggling, for he had not been given a chance to live correctly. He, however, has the hope that he will get better. If he has faith, he has no need to struggle.

And I must say thanks to you - without people poking huge gaps in my arguments, I can't learn anything Smile

Oh, and going back to my other thread, War is simply the gravest form of struggling.

---------- Post added 11-28-2009 at 01:31 PM ----------

Anyway, to get back to the purpose of the thread:

Technology tries to end suffering. It does not, however, end unhappiness. In fact, it simply makes the struggle for pleasure more severe.

People had the exact same chance to be happy 1000 years ago as they do today, and in some parts of the world, a better chance. Therefore, technological progress cannot create happiness.

Perhaps what I am arguing for is not a step back in progress. Logic would state that there is no way to go back. Progress does not always have to be bigger or better.

Maybe I'm just trying to progress towards a simpler, less flashy, more appreciative way of life with less instant-gratification and no risks.

0 Replies

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;105712 wrote:

It's like we're trying to solve all of Earth's problems with inventions instead of ideas or changes in lifestyle.

That certainly seems to be the case in the USA...

Technology has made our lives easier in many ways, but also made it more complicated. For every problem we solve with technology, we create a new one.

-ITL-

1 Reply

@IntoTheLight,

dharma bum wrote:

If everybody lived forever, you would never have the incentive to be with them, or to say sorry to them, or to love them. Why talk to your father today when he'll be around tomorrow?

You would still have those incentives, because they are natural. Most people will be around tomorrow and we still talk to them...

Quote:

If we cure cancer and other such diseases, we will be nothing but apathetic towards life. As a society, we are already apathetic towards most things, even when there is still suffering in the world.

Then we will cure apathy :letme-at-em:

Quote:

Technology tries to end suffering. It does not, however, end unhappiness. In fact, it simply makes the struggle for pleasure more severe.

People had the exact same chance to be happy 1000 years ago as they do today, and in some parts of the world, a better chance. Therefore, technological progress cannot create happiness.

There's a limit to how happy we can be. It's not an evolutionary advantage to be easily satisfied.

There are some things that can make us happy though. People are happier on average than they were 1000 years ago. Heck, say what you want about antidepressants but they can help people with depression.

Quote:

Maybe I'm just trying to progress towards a simpler, less flashy, more appreciative way of life with less instant-gratification and no risks.

I'll criticize our society for pursuing the wrong goals when I figured out how to be happy myself :bigsmile:

I see what you are trying to say...but I think you would have to know a whole lot about history and psychology before you could say that our society is going about things the wrong way.

Technology is not a bad thing, I think you'll find that "ideas and changes and lifestyle" have to deal with the same biological limitations on happiness.

0 Replies

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;105712 wrote:

You could say to make lives better, but then why is most technology of a military or consumerist nature?

It's like we're trying to solve all of Earth's problems with inventions instead of ideas or changes in lifestyle.

I agree that humans have a lot to gain from looking inward. But much of our technology has made the comfort and food-supply possible for contemplation in the first place. A group greedy but well fed men might wage war. A group of starving man will almost definitely wage war, if they have any chance at all. Science has fed us and kept our babies alive.

Another problem. Any country that stops will be surpassed by other countries. The system is a bit out of control perhaps, but it's the journey, they say, and not the destination. These are strange times, I suppose. But we might as well affirm them, as they might be all we have.

0 Replies

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;105712 wrote:

To where is scientific progress supposed to lead us?

Technologically speaking, we have more now than we could possibly ever want. Why are we still trying to progress and grow and expand? What is the purpose of technology? You could say to make lives better, but then why is most technology of a military or consumerist nature?

My question is, what are we ever going to do with all the unnecessary science we have at our disposal?

It's like we're trying to solve all of Earth's problems with inventions instead of ideas or changes in lifestyle.

I propose that society has nowhere to move but back. We will eventually realize that there is nothing more to discover, see, hear, taste, feel, and our only course of action is to take a step back and adopt simpler lifestyles. I hope.

Generally science is about making numbers meaningless... When one can kill a billion there is no limit to the slavery people can be forced to endure...We cannot change what is natural to us, so we change forms/ideas in order to change what we can change...It is through changes in forms, forms of dwelling, forms of production, forms of sustenance, forms of government; all forms of relationship that humanity progresses by... A move from cave to dungeon, from tent to cabin also represented a new understanding of nature as well as an improvement on it...Science is a part of that understanding, and the creation a new reality is made possible through these forms, including science...But these changes of forms wait on a change of perspective, and that waits on the natural conservatism of people to be overcome with the need to change... Some people never get it... When something does not work for the intelligent, they try to change something... Life is an intelligence test after all...

---------- Post added 12-17-2009 at 05:58 PM ----------

Reconstructo;112051 wrote:

I agree that humans have a lot to gain from looking inward. But much of our technology has made the comfort and food-supply possible for contemplation in the first place. A group greedy but well fed men might wage war. A group of starving man will almost definitely wage war, if they have any chance at all. Science has fed us and kept our babies alive.

Another problem. Any country that stops will be surpassed by other countries. The system is a bit out of control perhaps, but it's the journey, they say, and not the destination. These are strange times, I suppose. But we might as well affirm them, as they might be all we have.

History is the class struggle, but that is often played out internationally...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;112214 wrote:

History is the class struggle, but that is often played out internationally...

True, but it's not only that. It's presumably bigger than any single perspective.

1 Reply

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;105712 wrote:

My question is, what are we ever going to do with all the unnecessary science we have at our disposal?

I think that the answer is - we have to figure it out.

This technological evolution accelerates human evolution itself, because human have to think about himself more into deep. It is like when we figured out how to use fire and sharp rock on the stick...

If you look at the past this way, you will see it as a necessary tool, so these apes in the past used something to get and learn other thing. Imagine what will think about us people which will live in the far future - Indeed, there was people which were worried about stuff they invented, but this stuff learned them to think about it, otherwise they could not think about themselves at all.

I suppose that people dont have to get technological progress like something which will be harmful for them even if so at the beginning. It is just part of their evolution and will force them to evolve into something more in the future.

1 Reply

@pantheras,

I dont think technology is going too fast, I think humanity is not keeping up ethically. We always abuse technology, till we realise it can do more good than harm. I'm afraid many advances have been made through the desire to win a particular war. Even the cold war had certain advantages from the technology that was used.

2 Replies

@dharma bum,

dharma_bum;105712 wrote:

To where is scientific progress supposed to lead us?

Technologically speaking, we have more now than we could possibly ever want. Why are we still trying to progress and grow and expand? What is the purpose of technology? You could say to make lives better, but then why is most technology of a military or consumerist nature?

My question is, what are we ever going to do with all the unnecessary science we have at our disposal?

It's like we're trying to solve all of Earth's problems with inventions instead of ideas or changes in lifestyle.

I propose that society has nowhere to move but back. We will eventually realize that there is nothing more to discover, see, hear, taste, feel, and our only course of action is to take a step back and adopt simpler lifestyles. I hope.

I completely agree with you! While we spend so much time trying to move forward, we don't relish in things that we already naturally have. Our society focuses so much on the longevity of our lives, but the quality of the lives most of us live are definitely not (gee, I wonder why ever 3 seconds someone wants to leave this world). We try to change everything on the outside, but never look into ourselves to solve these issues. Instead of finding a universal meaning of life, there should be more of an emphasis on how we can make this life worth living for each one of us as individuals. There are too many standards that many people don't live up to, and that causes most of the pain and suffering we see on a daily basis. I'm not saying that having order and standards are a bad thing, but you can't have everything. Its a give and take. Moving backwards is probably the only way we will ever see a true change in our society.

0 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112236 wrote:

True, but it's not only that. It's presumably bigger than any single perspective.

If you can discover what a thing is, perspective has no effect on that...If it looks like something else from another perspective it usually is something else...I am caused to think of boxes and other art from West coast natives, where animals are represented whole on each side...If the object was a bear, or an orca, the side might have a full profile, and the front view might show the face and appendages, and ditto for the back, showing a rear view with appendages...It is as though they could only conceive of the animal whole, but in trying to show the animal whole produced five images of the same animal on a single box...We have a more difficult task than they...We look at society as a social form through the perspective of infinite forms like justice or freedom or virtue, or morality...Perhaps the best we can capture is a certain sense of the thing/non thing...

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;106640 wrote:

Probably it will be. But I still have no idea why you are opposed to curing cancer or heart disease. Very peculiar. I can suppose only that you, or anyone you care about, has not been seriously ill.

It could be that the person has been perverted by reading Leibniz, and imagines that these evils are necessary for the greater good. This being "the best possible world" means that this world is better than one in which such things do not happen. (I personally prefer Voltaire's take on this, but we are not talking about my position.)

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;118086 wrote:

I dont think technology is going too fast, I think humanity is not keeping up ethically.

Try to look at it by this way. Thanks to technology, you have at disposal many ways how to make your life better or make worse life of the others. People can pick what they will do, because everything is possible, while there is any kind of util to make that happen.

The dilema how much look at the ethics will occur mostly after any confrontation. After that user will see that things can turn into something else.

For example kid which is sitting by playstation whole day can start to think about his life, while will figure out that just graduated from high-school and still have no girlfriend. It is about consequences which you can see if you just use these things.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;118086 wrote:

I dont think technology is going too fast, I think humanity is not keeping up ethically. .

What makes you think that? Are we not less sexist, racist, xenophobic and homophobic than we were 100 years ago?

2 Replies

The Limits of our Society

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know