Will the rapid speed at which we are increasing in technological advancement compromise the long-term stability of the world?
>the world is stable
Politically, it is very fluid
Economically it is very dynamic
Rapid progression is only beneficial as it serves to quickly snuff more retarded conservative views before they can defend them.
>discover the cure for cancer
repeat ad finitum
It may have the opposite effect OP
If you can use technology to produce massively more resources with no issue, then logically there should be less conflict over them. (speaking about food & healthcare mainly). If everyone can 3d print whatever they want from their homes, then there is less disparity between people, and hopefully less conflict again.
Of course, this relies on people being logical and moral (not wanting to fuck up the process so that they can obtain advantage from disparity), so who knows. On the other hand, in one of the countries I visit regularly, people were having 8-10 kids, and maybe 2-4 were surviving to adulthood. Now, thanks to foreign medicine, theyre all survivng, and theres a hell of a lot more competition. So it cuts both ways
The world OP sees and the world you see are different. What OP means is something along the lines of: Technology causes us to consume lots of finite resources as well as pollution to the Earth; is this consumption of resource going to one day cause Earth to digress to a uninhabitable state of decay, where in there would be food and drink shortages, difficulties breathing and anything that comes with a unhealthy planet?
I know, I strongly suspect it will just come down to which technologies advance faster. We get fusion, a lot of problems go away quite quickly. If we manage to go mine asteroids (long way away I know, but hypothetically), resource problems solved(ish), or at least moved off earth.
I believe if anything began to have too strong an affect on human comfort (at least, the ones who can afford technology), more and more money will be poured into it until it is solved. Eg, with AGW, I would imagine you could build machines to remove CO2 and other greenhouse gases out the atmosphere, until it was back to prerevolution conditions, but it would be prohibitively expensive. When bad things start happening, the line where prohibitively expensive is starts to move. As technology progresses, more and more power becomes available to those who couldnt afford it before, and are often those who have the most drive to see a change in their local environs.
At the worst, many many people will die, some will survive (thanks to technology I'd imagine), and the human race will continue in some fashion. What are your thoughts?
I can't take you seriously aether
Then shouldn't we stop advancing technologically and focus primarily on the preservation of what nature we have left?
you don't know what your talking about, graphene makes shitty transistors and 3d circuits have a limited effect on moores, stop believing all the crap you see on popsci websites, electronics will slow down in a decade
Capitalism is not indefinite, humans are above capitalist society. It can come to an end; the world must unite for the preservation of the natural world. This is to prevent humanity going extinct, and being at the forefront of what seems to be like a never ending spiral of suffering on the way down.
no because the ruling class already controls that. controlling technology is one of the ways it's done. that's why slavery and wage slavery is so important. you think that if the thresher, cotton gin, and combine had all been distributed on a widescale then it would have freed up some slaves in the u.s. to start their own free communities? if so, you'd be right.
The world has never been stable. Long term we see massive extinction events and short term we see volcanoes, storms, forest fires, diseases, etc.
Humanity is just another long term extinction event.
We can not get off the techno-ride. If we halt all advancement at today's tech our environment would suffer so much humanity would be threatened, going backward in tech and we would starve. We need to advance.. the faster the better
We are this techno-ride, if world education was directed towards beneficent environmental causes, and away from all non-beneficent technology, eventually technology would decrease, probably through the voice of the younger generations, and the future of the world would look more healthy.
Most of the world is upgrading to fiber while I have the same internet speed as 12 years ago, because I am a Burgerland and the monopoly still has control over it.
Similarly, businesses, government, and medicine are still refusing to upgrade and digitize their shit, in 10 years I will still have to see a human being which writes a $300 prescription after doing a $500 examination, while someone across the planet will have a $10 test and the robot will sort out the most likely outcome, and their medicine will be $1 because, in America, even generic medicines from 30 years ago still cost $80 a bottle for a 30 days supply of not the max dose.
the world isn't static. If its one thing about humans they wont sit still. People are constantly trying to improve their own lives and some even do it at the expense of others. You can't tell 7 billion people what to do. Change is inevitable.
Did you miss the industrial revolution? That pretty much depended on Eco-deadly power.
Thankfully technology is helping us recover from that big mistake.
Have you been aware of:
>rise in solar panel usage
>social negativity towards industry
Have you heard of:
>What life can possibly feel like, and be like.
>How everything gets old after some usage,
>When you have little, you make the most out of the things you have and it feels okay, and is ultimately good, or consistent. You adapt to your environment.
We as a species are intelligent enough to live and prosper without technology, or at least the technologies that aren't beneficent to the species, and therefore Earth, in some way.
> rapid speed of technological advancement
Nigga, we stagnant. Technology is getting more advanced and we're just using it to play flippidy birds and post on 4chin. Nothing significant has been put to real use in 15 years.
Sometime in the future, all of mankind will be extinct. In fact, every bit of life on our planet earth will eventually turn to ash and burn. It's just how the universe works
Our sun will eventually burn out. After all, it is a finite resource, just like everything else in existence. It may take billions of years, but it is a FACT that everything we know and love will someday be obliterated into individual particles of matter. Pretty depressing once you think about it.
On a more positive note, it's almost 100% likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe. So even if our little slice of life on planet earth is destined to be wiped out, there will probably be life elsewhere
Not exactly, the children of humanity will prosper. If we went extinct through an ice age or something massive, in billions of years the earth would have new species in life that have our genetics. You're nihilistic and egotistical. Live for today, mentality, forgetting about tomorrow. Plus, who knows, there may be afterlife. I think our opinions are not worthless if they are in support of our natural instincts, such as to preserve the world for our future children.
>in billions of years the earth would have new species in life that have our genetics
No guarantee, sounds like an egotistical assumption to me.
You're just as wrong as the person you're criticizing but in the other direction. We really don't know.
And unless some of our offspring develop viable space travel then all of our descendants really will be dead eventually.
100 years is nothing on the grand scale of things.
The speed of human progress is staggering. In the lifespan of a single human we've discovered nuclear energy/weapons, digital technology, superconductors, flown to the moon, sent probes out of the solar system, invented pacemakers and brain implants, invented magic scanners that can can virtually slice humans(MRI,CT), we've learned how to study nanomechanics, quantum phenomenon, we've built particle colliders of enormous size, we've created the internet and become able to render photorealistic graphics and countless, countless other things.
Today there's more universities, there's more people in research, there's better tools availible. We'll have fusion energy and AI soon, we'll have biological immortality soon.
Lets say "the wireless telegraph"(radio) to be the start of our era.
That's 1872 when the patent was awarded.
By 2119, the radio will be 1 year old if you've been living on Pluto.
By 2119, we might really have people living on pluto.
>will the rapid speed at which we are increasing
This is not the industrial revolution anymore. The rapid speed you see right now is only on menial entertainment products. Everything else is going slow, no worries.
You think too narrowly about technological advancement. Mass producing electricity or cars is just as dangerous to the environment as nuclear weapons, it's just in different, slower ways. How cars move can also be seen as the advancement of technology. Another question then, will all the cars spraying poisonous gasses into the air destroy or worsen our atmosphere, in the long term? Will Earth one day be destroyed by humanity and not a natural disaster?
It already has compromised us.
>Have any of you ever tried building a camp fire?
>Can you make fire without a lighter?
>Can you make an axe from stone to build a shelter?
These were the first technological advancements and, still, the most crucial to human survival yet no kindergarten, middle, or high school teaches it. You'd be lucky if your college has a course on this.
Hominids lived through many extinction events, however, that was due to knowing how to make fire from nothing and kill shit with rocks we broke by hand. That and being able to eat just about anything. I'm the post above and think these skills need to be retaught to the masses. It'd just be like a physical education class.
I know you weren't stating that your culture exists in a post-scarcity society now. I live in the first world too but that there is some bullshit.
>Then shouldn't we stop advancing technologically and focus primarily on the preservation of what nature we have left?
You seriously considering abandoning industrial civilization, and the knowledge, skill, expertise, and capacity to remove all of the giant industrial plants?
Not to mention agricultural equipment?
To be honest, I think humanity should stop advancing technology.
We had everything we needed by 1999.
The only thing technology is doing now is promoting degeneracy and other societal diseases as the internet gets more and more popular.
The only field that should be getting funding is Medicine.
If you took a physics class you will have no trouble starting a fire. Just more proof physics master race?
>mfw engineers try to make a fire
>The only thing technology is doing now is promoting degeneracy and other societal diseases as the internet gets more and more popular.
but what if this is unambiguously the thing i want the most from technology
a. i reject quasi-utilitarian optimization ethics, whether needs or wants
b. let's say what you meant was "What if the fulfilment of this want is *UNAMBIGUOUSLY EVIL?*" then i guess what i wanted would be evil? but if i knew that i probably wouldn't want it.
i guess what i'm trying to say is that i think the internet's dissolution of shared cultural standards has been unambiguously good
>>The only thing technology is doing now is promoting degeneracy and other societal diseases as the internet gets more and more popular.
technology has not led to degeneracy; but merely opened the doors to anonymity which has led to an unfiltered explosion of new ideas - some of which may not be as agreeable with conservative values
itt: the usual gang of autists that is /sci/ read the word 'technology' in the op and then only take into account heavy industry and information tech/computing
you are all leaving the real upcoming technological revolution out of the picture: genetic engineering and manipulation, and you can bet your precious smartphones it will MASSIVELY disrupt the social, ecological, political and economic spheres.
autist faggots in your ivory towers jerking off over faster transistors... mfw
We will probably mess up the world bad but on the plus side we will take life off of our planet and onto another one and the earth will eventually go back to normal (after the death of thousands of species and millions if not billions of people beforehand though)
Because GMOs and designer pets are a real game changer... What the fuck else is genetic engineering working on that's mass-marketable? Yeah that's not going to make money. No funding.
Yeah like imagine if you had a genetically engineered spider that was nondangerous to humans and pets but hunted down actual pests. Or you could modify a wasp for airborne version of the same thing..
Fuller was a brilliant man but this quote is not one of his more brilliant moves
The problem is that the great unwashed have to be occupied in some way or they will get up to all sorts of nasty business
>We as a species are intelligent enough to live and prosper without technology
We as a species aren't unintelligent enough to live without technology, that's called human progression. Weather you like it or not, humans are greedy and impatient and stupid, we want more, that's why instead of waiting for evolution, we combine technology with ourselves, our social life, our abilities and the planet we're living on. Everything is based on cause and effect when it comes to technology. We were intelligent and needed convenience, so we invented industry. We were intelligent and needed to make our lives safer, so we stopped using led. We were intelligent and needed our environment to stay clean, so we're trying to change industry with the use of eco-friendly technology. You can't just up and say "some technologies aren't beneficial to us and Earth" because that's completely wrong. Technology is humanities greatest invention.
Capitalistic countries have higher standards of living, are more democratic, have their economies grow at faster rates, etc. The main drawback is inequality, but most people don't care that other people are richer than them while they themselves are sipping overpriced lattes from Starbucks.
The world isn't "rapidly progressing." Computer processors are increasing in operations/second. Is it really reasonable to assert they are "progressing" though?
Exponential progress is a metaphysical assumption and I always call people out on it IRL.
Why don't people say the world is progressing at the rate of (2^t^t)?
>metaphysics => trash can