Technology and progression

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Technology and progression.

The two terms are generally considered analogous. But what makes this so? Are we really better off now than we were hundreds of years ago? Have technological improvements really shone a positive light on society?

I wrote a small essay on the matter for school, and it really got me thinking. In order to elaborate a bit more on my position, here is the essay in it's entirety:

"Over the past couple of centuries human technology has mushroomed to heights previously thought unattainable. The vast extent of human knowledge (much of which is kept under wraps by the government) is even greater than that of which we are aware. Most people have a positive view of our technological improvements, as they continually indulge themselves with commodities such as video games, cell phones, and television. However, I would assert that we are in fact no better off now than we ever were. Are the terms ‘technology’ and ‘progression’ really as analogous as popular opinion suggests?

Examining the lifestyle of early American Indians, one is left to wonder how science and technology have managed to erode away our free time. The average Indian work week was no more than ten to sixteen hours. Compare that to our current forty hour work week; society has not progressed at all. The Indians lived socialistic lives in which each member of the community contributed equally to each others needs. They did not live richly (at least in the sense which we are familiar with), but were content with what they had much more so than we are today, even with the many various luxuries technology has blessed us with.

In America life is a competition. Consumerism continually forces the value of material goods down creating a never quenching thirst for more. Common “values” teach that if you do not surpass previous set standards of wealth then you are, quite frankly, a failure at life. As can be expected, when capitalism and competition force all the wealth into the hands of a dominant few, many people are left out, and their needs are not provided for. This was not a problem in Indian culture.

So how does technology come into play here? It is clearly the driving force behind consumerism.
Just as scientists seek to surpass the advancements of other scientists, consumers are driven into constant competition with one another. Prices increase, and the work week skyrockets to stay on
par. Is it not ironic how such “labor saving” devices have actually led to more toil in the long run?

How can anyone claim that America is free from oppression? We are all slaves to the market. Big business has successfully established a tyranny over the common citizen. The government stands by helpless, the policy of free enterprise standing in the way of any attempts at regulation. How may we stop this undesirable regression? At the moment it appears unstoppable. Nothing will quench the human drive for power and knowledge, common sense least of all. The Indians led simple, happy lives, and enjoyed a bond with nature many of us have never known. A re-establishment of that bond is the only way to contentment. Material items cannot and never will grant the inner peace we all desire."





As you can see, I believe a return to our roots would be in society's best interest. What do you think?

[ENIGMA]

As you can see, I believe a return to our roots would be in society's best interest. What do you think?

The problem with such an argument is that it fails to recognize the stark difference between the lifespan of one who has access to modern medicine as opposed to one who does not.

The average lifespan in such ancient cultures was around roughly 30-40. Granted, the number of infant deaths and deaths in childbirth lowers the mean, but even adjusting it to say 35-45 doesn't make things much better considering that would place me, a 19 year old student, on average, as being middle-aged. Of course the bit about in practice, my being dead several times over doesn't particularly give me a favorable perspective to such a prospect.

In even the worst ghettos in the US, at least 99% of people born will survive into adulthood. I doubt that you can find any ancient society that could boast the same.

[AlAyeti]

Consumerism employs the worlds societies. And always will.

While the rich get richer, the masses have companies to work at. And HD TV's at WalMart they can afford.

Russia is a good example that commercialism is as healthy as an honset EPA worker.

But on moral issues:

The lazy, evil and ignorant shun technology and progress. Progress and technology should do away with things like abortion and fast foods in the same way. By showing scientific facts. The technology of Ultra Sound can show a human in the uterus as easily as it can show fat deposits in a chest. Crimes against children could sure benefit from the illumination that technology can shed on the subject. Big brother watching in this cse could save little brother from being molested.

Darwinistic Evolution should go the way of the dodo bird if evidence from labs gets a free exchange of ideas. But alas things like evolution is used to sell the bad side of consumerism in the proliferation of child porn and hedonism purchased so cheaply with the technology of evil side consumerism.

Hopefully mankind will use technology and progression to expose the abuses inherent in technology and progression.

Let's hope if we are secularists, and let's pray if we are Christians.

[micatala]

Darwinistic Evolution should go the way of the dodo bird if evidence from labs gets a free exchange of ideas. But alas things like evolution is used to sell the bad side of consumerism in the proliferation of child porn and hedonism purchased so cheaply with the technology of evil side consumerism.

What??

How is evolution being used to sell the bad side of consumerism? What does evolution have to do with child porn?

Honestly, this makes no sense and seems like an effort to smear evolution simply by putting the word in the same sentence as as some neagtive things, regardless of what truth or logic might have to say.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Enigma, true about the health issues. I had thought about that, and recognise it as a beneficial factor. My position is more concerning the impact on human morale and ethics.

It is not as if I propose we stop making technological improvements. As if that will ever happen. No, I speak more from a philosophical standpoint. The common belief is that technology offers some solution to every problem. Wars. Intolerance. Depression. That new cell phone they are comming out with will put an end to those. Does not matter how many times this belief is disproved, everyone is much more comfortable putting their trust in those clever scientists that will one day cook up something that will make them drop 150 pounds in a week by eating at McDonalds and watching TV.

In this way I believe technology has actually stifling progress. God forbid anyone take the initiative to solve the world's problems. We'll leave that to the guys in lab coats.

Everyone has these romantic fantasies about the future. Sparkling white cities, flying cars, flawless governments, happy communities. Yeah, I bet people a hundred years back had the same vision. Boy were they up for a rude awakening.

Ever looked at suicide charts? The rates have remained pretty much the same since the beginning of time. If I had my guess, they have increased tenfold. Yeah, material-crazed cultures will do that to you. In the past you might kill yourself if you were unwillingly forced into mairrage with an oppressive spouse. In my school this one kid shot himself for going over his cell phone minutes. No joke.

Consumerism employs the worlds societies. And always will.

While the rich get richer, the masses have companies to work at. And HD TV's at WalMart they can afford.

Russia is a good example that commercialism is as healthy as an honset EPA worker.

Commercialism is economically healthy, sure. But when has the state of the economy EVER had a correlation with morale?

The percentage of happy citizens less developed countries is pretty much the same as ours. Clearly wealth is not so much a factor.

Progress and technology should do away with things like abortion and fast foods in the same way. By showing scientific facts. The technology of Ultra Sound can show a human in the uterus as easily as it can show fat deposits in a chest. Crimes against children could sure benefit from the illumination that technology can shed on the subject. Big brother watching in this cse could save little brother from being molested.

As previously stated, I don't think technology has any effect on ethics. Is our generation any more moral than the last?

Philosophy and psycology, not science, determine moral convictions IMO.

[AlAyeti]

P-P,

Yours is one of the best posts written in months.

Certainly it seems things are no better now than at any other time in history. And I have almost everything I need instantly. While thousands died today of starvation I threw away most of my meal. I wasn't hungry because i got fast food on the way home a couple hours before dinner.

This one single point has shown me the truth in Jesus. No matter my credit limit I cannot feel anything but remorse and repentance. I cannot find solace or respite even from my remote control that can show me three-hundred channels in just minutes.

I have no doubt that both technology and "Progress," will ultimately fail a creature that has in its DNA the signature of God. Plastic products and instant messaging cannot fill the void left in our God Shaped hole.

A Nigerian friend of mine living and working here in America, has more money than all of the villagers in the town he came from combined. He is not happy right now. He is also over weight.

It is interesting that the world is very much like the society and people watching Noah build his stupid boat. While destruction crept up on them.

Read the story with today in mind and it will give you the willies.

[juliod]

How can anyone claim that America is free from oppression? We are all slaves to the market. Big business has successfully established a tyranny over the common citizen. The government stands by helpless, the policy of free enterprise standing in the way of any attempts at regulation. How may we stop this undesirable regression?

Of course, technology is not responsible for this. The worst working conditions were at the start and before the industrial revolution. That was when we had slaves working the land as near-free labor. And early factories, with little-to-no technology had the worst conditions for workers (including children).

As far as technology is concerned, I think it is just that our factories make different products than they did in 1800. I doubt that the high-tech crave is any different from, for example, the introduction of tea, or sugar, or chocolate, into europe.

The way I see it, we (the US, mainly) have worked our way into a circumstance where we believe that corporations have rights but people don't.

Organized labor has disappeared from the national consciousness. The typical working class man supports the interests of the billionaires over the interests of his own family. It's a remarkable development.

I put it down to significant swing to the right of the Democratic Party. Yes, the Democrats. Clinton, his policies being solidly right-of-center, took the party on a step-to-the-right and stole all the republican issues. Nowdays, of course, his detractors paint him as some sort of pinko-commie. Ludicrous. But it shows how far we have moved. We dont have a left and a right party. We have a right-center party and a far-right party. Actual left wing parties (i.e. The Green Party) get what, 1% of the vote?

Anyway, it is not technology that created this problem. Other countries (well, some of them) have more tchnology than the US, but without (or perhaps because of the lack of) the corporate dominance we are seeing today in the US.

DanZ

[micatala]

It is not as if I propose we stop making technological improvements. As if that will ever happen. No, I speak more from a philosophical standpoint. The common belief is that technology offers some solution to every problem. Wars. Intolerance. Depression. That new cell phone they are comming out with will put an end to those. Does not matter how many times this belief is disproved, everyone is much more comfortable putting their trust in those clever scientists that will one day cook up something that will make them drop 150 pounds in a week by eating at McDonalds and watching TV.

I would agree. Technology is often glorified, and we forget from history that not every problem has a technological solution. For some problems, we need moral solutions. In my view, this does not necessarily mean a religious or spiritual solution, but I think religion and spirituality can inform such solutions. Certainly they point towards a world that is more than the sum of its material items, and a person as more than the sum of his possessions.

This one single point has shown me the truth in Jesus. No matter my credit limit I cannot feel anything but remorse and repentance. I cannot find solace or respite even from my remote control that can show me three-hundred channels in just minutes.

I have no doubt that both technology and "Progress," will ultimately fail a creature that has in its DNA the signature of God. Plastic products and instant messaging cannot fill the void left in our God Shaped hole.

A Nigerian friend of mine living and working here in America, has more money than all of the villagers in the town he came from combined. He is not happy right now. He is also over weight.

Yes, I agree with the general points here. I don't think Jesus is the only possible solution to the world's moral ills, but He is a solution.

As Einstein said:

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.