A prudent society would put technology on hold

Well, you could say the same for every new technology that's come along since man first learned to bang two rocks together to make fire.

And how, pray tell, exactly do we go about putting a "hold" on technology? And what do we do when other nations refuse to embargo the offending research and knowledge?

My chances of survival are fatally diminished? Oh my gosh, now I'm concerned. Normally I wouldn't mind ending my survival, but if it's fatal...crap!

But, wait, the fault is in me? Is there some kind of medical operation that can be used to remove the fault?



Gasp, catch 22 -- medical operations would just put more daemons of technology inside me!

But if technology is an extension of myself, does that make me an evil daemon of technology? Aha, this must be what they meant by original sin. We are all born evil because we are technology!

coberst, this gestalt character sounds very fatal indeed. Will you protect us from the Gestalt when they come to take us away in the year 26662 ?

A prudent society would weigh the pros and cons of advances in various technologies before forging blindly ahead with them. Some technological advances could primarily be perceived as positive - such as those that produce cleaner burning fuels producing less environmental pollution and green house gases, etc.

But some technologies, especially in the medical profession, are more morally and ethically problematic. Medical science has progressed to the point that a fetus can survive outside the womb at the gestational age of 23-24 weeks- weighing mere ounces -with the aid of technology. Although these babies have undeveloped lungs and suffer brain bleeds which can be devastating to their future development - they can be kept alive. Unfortunately, technology around making life "liveable" for the severly disabled has not kept up to the same degree. So what quality of life are they offered once they leave the neonatal intensive care unit?
Having said that - I know if I had given birth to a premature infant-I would have been grateful for any technology that would have kept my child alive.
The same is true at the other end of the spectrum, in terms of people with serious chronic illnesses living longer and longer - it's getting less and less unusual for someone to reach the age of 100. Both of these situations put a real strain on our current society - as we don't seem to be investing in the technology that would enable either of these populations to live with a decent quality of life- but again- having said that, if my mother or father were able to live to be 100, without pain and fairly happy and lucid, I'd be grateful for whatever technology was available to help them achieve that.
I don't think it's so much about putting a hold on technology, as it is investing more thought and money into the technologies which would benefit the most people, and redirecting energies in those directions, until our morals and ethics caught up with our life-saving skills. And whether other societies followed suit or not should really not be an issue for a prudent society.

*Stem-cell research would primarily address the needs of those with Parkinson's and leukemia, wouldn't it? These usually effect people who are otherwise healthy and functional. How might it impact a society negatively to enable them to be cured-except in that there's be a miniscule rise in the population rate. I think it's more effective and morally ethical to address that problem with education and birth control.

aidan

We all approve longevity but have you ever given any serious thought to what longevity does to our world. How do we manage a world wherein we continually increase longevity?

Well, let's face it -- we are not a prudent society.



The extent to which this already happens really irks me. People dedicate their lives to research in some field of study because they feel it is important. They should not necessarily experience a hard time getting funding just because some political guy doesn't know or value the benefit of their field.

Many times, the advances in one field really came from an adaptation in another field. In general, most "obvious" things have been done, and it's new perspectives that make big changes anyway. All fields of science are important, and maximizing average population lifetime should not be the only deciding factor in where the money goes anyway.

I couldn't agree more.


Which fields of research and study are you concerned about? I'm most familiar with medical and environmental issues- so those are the ones I chose to write about. I'm not really that technologically savvy in any other area - in fact, pretty much the opposite is true. It's my impression that technology in the entertainment industry proceeds pretty much full-speed ahead though, and I have questions about how advantageous that's been for our society.

But in the medical field, it seems that what more commonly happens is that the research is funded, but the technology is not applied or made available to the mainstream population- as is the case with stem cell research, or various drug studies or treatment therapies that have been researched and developed but unapplied, because they've been viewed as being too expensive or not politically advantageous to implement.
I think this happens alot in the environmental sciences as well.

Coberst - That's exactly what I asked- what's the use of longevity without quality of life? We've gotten to the point that we can save almost any life, but cannot offer that person very much after their life has been saved. And I think that's an example of our imprudence- our wish to apply technology for the sake of applying technology - just because it's there. This has become a major ethical and moral issue in some fields of medicine, primarily in the US, where the medical technology is more advanced than in other countries.
In other countries, even developed ones like the UK, there is a somewhat different attitude toward death- it's accepted as being a part of life to a greater extent. Whether that's because the technology that keeps almost everyone alive is simply not as available, or because the people in those societies have a more innately realistic and prudent philosophical attitude toward death, I don't know.
But stem-cell research addresses illnesses in which quality of life would not suffer if the overlying illness, such as Parkinson's and leukemia was cured. The onset of Parkinson's disease can happen as early as the age of thirty or forty. Leukemia can strike anytime, and is most virulent (and curable) in childhood. These are people who could, if cured, live many more years functionally and possibly, if they chose to, make a positive contribution to a society.

I totally agree. When I said applying technology where it's most beneficial to the most people - I wasn't referring to extending life spans. I was thinking of making life more livable in general - primarily by implementing technology that would be beneficial to our planet and choosing not to implement technology which would be harmful in the long run - as would be the case with an increased population, in which more and more people were living longer but less functional lives.

Though again, I think it's a real moral and ethical gray area.

Technology makes us captive to an artificial lifestyle that is energy intensive. Once that enrgy is exhausted the human race that has adapted to a comfortable environment will not be able to cope with the natural jungle environment as we evolved into softer creatures.

Aidan,

You're pretty easy to agree with. My perspective is from computer science. I think cs has a bad rep because it has sort of a dichotomy that makes it 2 broad fields; you have the people who basically study computers and ways to make them run better (and they basically support the other half!), and then you have those who are practically married to some other science field and just use computers to solve problems in that field by designing new algorithms and trying new ideas. These are the people who are making the biggest breakthroughs in technology, and of course they are making breakthroughs in medical fields as well, cracking genetic codes and stuff.



I don't really think it's within the capabilities of our species to behave in the ideal kind of way that so many people hope and think we will someday attain. I think we are all just hardcoded to be too selfish and short-sighted. I'm not even saying this in a pessimistic way, I just think that's the way we are. It's not like social morals are ever going to "catch up". The only thing things that are going to "catch up" with us are devastation of natural resources, climactic social and economic comebacks.

But humans aren't so soft as you suggest, talk72000. If everyone on this planet were thrown back into the jungle today it would not take more than a generation for us to feel at home there.

Coberst,

The concept of " a prudent society" involves the lay assumption that "society has control". This is a confusion of psychological and sociological levels of description. In the same way that "a blood cell" has no control of "the body" (the Gestalt) we have no control over the mechanisms of "society" or indeed higher level eco-systems of which human society may be a very minor part in the long run. Anthropocentrism is the issue, not technology.

I hope that happens real soon.

Technology does good things to the comfort of man, but it can be devastating to his moral fiber and his ability to survive without it.

Hasn't the main purpose of the natural sciences been to gain control of how nature effects our life? Math is so great because it helps greatly in our attempt to control our life.

Coberst,

See Capra "the Web of Life" on the point of "control" versus "ecological viability". It may be that our problems stem from the illusary linkage of "control" with "success".

Yes, I agree

A good example is that most babies are born by Caesarian Section as the head is too big in our advanced technological and scientific society requires. If medicine ever deteriorates with medical costs sky rocketing many women with too small a pelvic bone with die from child birth and end the big brained babies.

Anarcho-primativists and neo-luddites always will be with us. Sorta like being mad at the train 'cause they missed it.

...and Rome was going to tower forever.

Antimodernism never grows old.