Don't blame me for the furious ranters who will descend on this thread. Like flies, they are part of the environment.

Now...

I would like you to be creative and dream up a perfect human community. What would it look like? How much technology would it require?

I see mainly landscape and uncrowded architecture. I see small local farms delivering fresh food to local people. I see communities supporting one another. I see all our wisdom and efforts and the fruits of our wisdom and efforts turned toward moderating our physical footprint on the Earth, and maximizing or moral footprint. I don't see anywhere near the amount of technology we have today.

[size=18pt]We need so much technology because of our collective moral failings.[/size] When we are desperate, we seek to plunder someone else's success. We develop vast amounts of weaponry and build armies. We need fortresses to protect ourselves. We develop economies as a means, not just of material production, but for servicing our errant ways and pursuing an agenda of domination. We build huge transport systems, ferrying commuters backwards and forwards to push paper in concrete towers. People become sedentary and ill. We create a huge pharmeceuticals market to keep people on life support. And we proudly call it technological progress. Factory farming, unspeakable waste, pollution.. a spiral of decadence for lack of addressing the [size=18pt]basic moral questions[/size].

I am told that technology has brought me the computer that I am now using to type this post. I can communicate with people on the other side of the world. And so what? Most of us are now surrounded by anonymous neighbours whose names we do not know, our locations decided by the pressures of servicing our militarized existences.

I am told that technology allows me to fly to some unspoiled coastline in Greece for a wonderful holiday. Yes a holiday from the spoiled coastlines that used to be my neighbourhood.

"Thanks" to technology, we are all living longer. Yes, over 50% of adults in the UK pop pills for insomnia, depression, obesity, etc.

We "eradicated" smallpox! We caused an epidemic of it in the first place, by creating cities of concrete jungles where people lost their natural immunity. It was observed, for example, that people working with cattle were largely immune.

Technology is overrated.

Have your say!

Says a dude via the......internets....obligatory even if foretold

You mistake consumerism (amongst other things) for technology. As usual, you remain profoundly confused....

But I'll get into the spirit. I personally think eating meat is overrated, what say yeh? Yay or nay?

wiegraf:
Says a dude via the......internets....obligatory even if foretold

You recognized yourself! Progress.

wiegraf:
You mistake consumerism (amongst other things) for technology. As usual, you remain profoundly confused....

You remain profoundly brainwashed.

Technology is the exploitation of the environment to service our shortcomings.

Technology leads on to consumerism in the way I described.

The profound question, which your profoundly brainwashed mind could not fathom, is whether expanding the technology is more valuable progress than facing our moral shortcomings.

sinequanon:


You recognized yourself! Progress.



You remain profoundly brainwashed.

Technology is the exploitation of the environment to service our shortcomings.

Technology leads on to consumerism in the way I described.

The profound question, which your profoundly brainwashed mind could not fathom, is whether expanding the technology is more valuable progress than facing our moral shortcomings.

You're so cool

Mechanized farmng is overrated.
We can feed d world using stone age implements.
#dyu practice wat u preach? Dyu wrk with cattle?

asalimpo:
Mechanized farmng is overrated.

We don't need this to feed obese populations stuffing their faces with burgers and fries...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXKjm0IZSX8

It is greed that has led to monoculture, where just one thing is planted on a large scale for shortsighted ease of processing, instead of having a balanced mix of vegetation and wildlife. Then the plagues of bugs, rodents and "pests" that result require the use of toxic chemicals to cull back, especially as we are too greedy to share anything and need to maximize our yield to the market. And the imbalanced ecosystem has to be replenished with artificial fertilizers. The produce is then shipped for miles from the centralized farms, leaving a tale of cruelty and pollution in its wake. We are pumped with adverts on TV and billboards to double our chicken intake, while mountains of wasted carcasses are destroyed on a regular basis.

Don't you think we could have better turned our intellect to local farming issues -- irrigation, balanced ecosystems, healthy diets etc. with a fraction of the technology required to sustain our obese populations?

What the hell is this doing in the religion section? Mods moves this to technology section,the Op is confused,he doesn't know what religious topic is anymore.

Dapo777:
What the hell is this doing in the religion section? Mods moves this to technology section,the Op is confused,he doesn't know what religious topic is anymore.

I don't think that illiterates like you are running this site. Go and see if you can read the OP properly.

This thread obviously pertains to how technology is used in place of moral development.

Technology is driven by demand, so we have to examine the moral underpinnings of our demand.

The vast majority of our technology supplies for our most decadent demands. In this respect, explosion in technology is not a sign of development, but an indication of our unwillingness to progress morally.

Morality means that we don't go down blind alleys. Morality is a wisdom (not a formula or a set of commandments) that gives us "foresight" -- an understanding of the whole, and how our decisions and our problems are one and the same.

"We need to go back to what our predecessors did and find out how they coped" -- so says this farmer, as they realize that wisdom, not technology is what sustains the land -- wisdom they have forgotten.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiqED8sTQaE

Obese population in Africa? Op your a propaganda puppet.
The only obesity if any is on unhealthy carbo for most.
For those in d income crush bracket, low income checks hyper consumption.

Let me start by asking which human civilization, in the annals of history has ever answered these mythical moral questions, and consequently laid a moral foot print or foundations upon which to build this mythical Utopia on earth?

Our genetic nature compel us to compete for survival, to acquire and experience. We can neither progress nor survive in the long run if we do not compete.

In the past, competition was simple matter of brute force and warfare.
Today, scientific knowledge creates an equal ground upon which everyone in every nation can compete with their naturally endowed cranial attributes.

What have men sitting in silent meditations in caves ever bequeathed humankind in terms of food production, medicine or even human rights and peace?

To say that we use technology to hide our moral Shortcomings is comical and dishonest, given that humans were not ever more moral or virtuous when we moved aroung with sticks and stones.

sinequanon:
This thread obviously pertains to how technology is used in place of moral development.

Technology is driven by demand, so we have to examine the moral underpinnings of our demand.

The vast majority of our technology supplies for our most decadent demands. In this respect, explosion in technology is not a sign of development, but an indication of our unwillingness to progress morally.

Morality means that we don't go down blind alleys. Morality is a wisdom (not a formula or a set of commandments) that gives us "foresight" -- an understanding of the whole, and how our decisions and our problems are one and the same.

"We need to go back to what our predecessors did and find out how they coped" -- so says this farmer, as they realize that wisdom, not technology is what sustains the land -- wisdom they have forgotten.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiqED8sTQaE

Another BS.

Our ancestors managed what they had to deal with because they had no choices. In fact , it was the lack of clear beneficial choices that compelled them to formulate silly beliefs and superstitions, that in turn, made them do silly and evil things.

Today, we live in era of wide choices.

I think part of what sinequanon is saying is that we need to develop a more sustainable technology which utilizes renewable energy sources as opposed to fossil fuels which, if left unchecked will lead to the ruin of the planet. But will the greed of the major corporations benefiting from a fossil fuel-based global economy be abated long enough for the rise in renewable energy and even (suppressed) free energy sources to take a hold in our world?

sinequanon:


I don't think that illiterates like you are running this site. Go and see if you can read the OP properly.

Ok, no need to bite me

asalimpo:
Mechanized farmng is overrated.
We can feed d world using stone age implements.
#dyu practice wat u preach? Dyu wrk with cattle?

Yeah.
Like smartphones are an overrated means of communication.
Let us go back to using smoke signals.
lol

ROSSIKE:
I think part of what sinequanon is saying is that we need to develop a more sustainable technology which utilizes renewable energy sources as opposed to fossil fuels which, if left unchecked will lead to the ruin of the planet. But will the greed of the major corporations benefiting from a fossil fuel-based global economy be abated long enough for the rise in renewable energy and even (suppressed) free energy sources to take a hold in our world?

We are evolving. There is little impetus to steer scientific research to unknown areas that might not produce measurable economic benefits.
The internet, for example did not develop overnight.
It evolved through small steps at a time by different agencies, corporations and individuals with different motivations. It was when these different groups started competing for profit that the internet exploded to it's present form that we know today.
It is the same thing with any type of technology or development.

Again, don't forget that the world's present socio economic system evolved out of the notion that resources are scarce and need to be competed for.
Anything, any technology that threatens or seeks to annul this basic assumption is bound to be ignored, sidelined or even destroyed by the very same hegemons who promote these economic axioms of Adam Smith and John Malthus.

plaetton:


We are evolving. There is little impetus to steer scientific research to unknown areas that might not produce measurable economic benefits.
The internet, for example did not develop overnight.
It evolved through small steps at a time by different agencies, corporations and individuals with different motivations. It was when these different groups started competing for profit that the internet exploded to it's present form that we know today.
It is the same thing with any type of technology or development.

Again, don't forget that the world's present socio economic system evolved out of the notion that resources are scarce and need to be competed for.
Anything, any technology that threatens or seeks to annul this basic assumption is bound to be ignored, sidelined or even destroyed by the very same hegemons who promote these economic axioms of Adam Smith and John Malthus.

But where does that leave us, ie the planet? Isn't the bone headedness of those 'hegemons' precisely what is leading us to destruction?

http://www.sustainablebuild.co.uk/problemsfossilfuels.html

ROSSIKE:


But where does that leave us, ie the planet?

Nature takes care of itself, irrespective of who get hurt or extinct.

According to John Malthus, wars and catastrophies are natures ways of maintaining control and restoring balance.

If we exploit the earth to the point where our consumption becomes unsustainable, then nature would inevitably intervene to shake out the weak hands in an attempt to restore itself,even if it means restarting with a population of 2, Adam and Eve.

plaetton:


Nature takes care of itself, irrespective of who get hurt or extinct.

According to John Malthus, wars and catastrophies are natures ways of maintaining control and restoring balance.

If we exploit the earth to the point where our consumption becomes unsustainable, then nature would inevitably intervene to shake out the weak hands in an attempt to restore itself,even if it means restarting with a population of 2, Adam and Eve.

I think what we are trying to avoid is nature ''taking care of itself'' by destroying us!! That's the point of the whole discussion isn't it? By the way I don't necessarily agree with Malthus' dark views there.

ROSSIKE:


I think what we are trying to avoid is nature ''taking care of itself'' by destroying us!! That's the point of the whole discussion isn't it? By the way I don't necessarily agree with Malthus' dark views there.

We should be managing and nurturing the environment, not focusing on exploiting it. There is a world of difference between the two things.

We need to be very clear in our minds about what kind of civilization we want, before we can talk about progress and advancement. Otherwise, towards what are we progressing? I think this is a moral question. Most people don't think beyond "more technology is progress -- it must be helping somehow".

If we treat the environment simply as a resource, we will mess it and ourselves up.

Without a moral compass, we react to the mess we create once it becomes intolerable. With morality, our motives are underpinned by a coherent long term vision in which technology is not used to replace responsibility.

sinequanon:


We should be managing and nurturing the environment, not focusing on exploiting it. There is a world of difference between the two things.

We need to be very clear in our minds about what kind of civilization we want, before we can talk about progress and advancement. Otherwise, towards what are we progressing? I think this is a moral question. Most people don't think beyond "more technology is progress -- it must be helping somehow".

If we treat the environment simply as a resource, we will mess it and ourselves up.

Without a moral compass, we react to the mess we create once it becomes intolerable. With morality, our motives are underpinned by a coherent long term vision in which technology is not used to replace responsibility.

And what is the best way to manage and nurture nature?

@sinequanon

You titled this OP like a seasoned journalist. Nice title. Misleading though.

The technological advancements we have made are what allow us to know that we have to conserve our environment. So its not that we overrate technology, its that we act as if we now don't know that we have to conserve our environment.

The advancements also allow us to know that we can improve the lives of a greater number of people than we previously could. Yet we are not focusing our efforts on that, as much we can.

What would you say our basic moral questions are, in addition to the two (I think) you have hinted at?

Our mortality means that we take from the environment.

Our spirituality means that we give to the environment.

Our wisdom decides the balance of the two. Our mortal footprint should be small, and our spiritual footprint bold.

I believe in purpose -- moral vision. We have a purpose.

We are not here to exploit the environment to fix ourselves and our shortcomings.

We are here to fix our environment and thereby ourselves.

Our environment is our barometer, a reflection of ourselves. That is the purpose of learning -- not technology.

finofaya:
@sinequanon

You titled this OP like a seasoned journalist. Nice title. Misleading though.

It is what I genuinely believe.

finofaya:
The technological advancements we have made are what allow us to know that we have to conserve our environment. So its not that we overrate technology, its that we act as if we now don't know that we have to conserve our environment.

I think that the explosion in technology is the main reason that we think we have to conserve our environment. It is as if the problems we thought technology fixed had only been dumped at sea, and are now washed up on every beach.

I think that the issue is not conservation, but backlog. Technology doesn't solve the real problems. It only recycles them. We have to recognize the sludge that is washing up from our moral deeps as moral issues that we tried to solve with technology.

finofaya:
The advancements also allow us to know that we can improve the lives of a greater number of people than we previously could. Yet we are not focusing our efforts on that, as much we can.

I think that it is moral advancements that do this, not technological advancements.

finofaya:
What would you say our basic moral questions are, in addition to the two (I think) you have hinted at?

If it looks like a hint, then I should make it more explicit.

I think that we should not replace moral purpose with technology.

The mortal side of us is a form of technology and needs technology to sustain itself.

But we should also recognize our spiritual side a lot more. It is what can bring harmony, real creativity (not recycling of problems) and less of the excessive exploitation of the environment that we call technological advancement.

ROSSIKE:
I think part of what sinequanon is saying is that we need to develop a more sustainable technology which utilizes renewable energy sources as opposed to fossil fuels which, if left unchecked will lead to the ruin of the planet. But will the greed of the major corporations benefiting from a fossil fuel-based global economy be abated long enough for the rise in renewable energy and even (suppressed) free energy sources to take a hold in our world?

No, that's not what he's saying.

He's essentially preaching his hippy (and hypocritical) BS and taunting it about as if it were some sort of universal truth and/or good. That's it. Nothing as sane as simple concern for the environment.

wiegraf:


No, that's not what he's saying.

He's essentially preaching his hippy (and hypocritical) BS and taunting it about as if it were some sort of universal truth and/or good. That's it. Nothing as sane as simple concern for the environment.

in the long run,its still technology that can be used to nurture nature efficiently...

davien:
in the long run,its still technology that can be used to nurture nature efficiently...

Exactly.. Science then technology.. As always

His concern is not the environment per say. He just wants to preach and feel some twisted 'holier than thou'. Even if technology were being abused it would be a fault of the one using the tech, not technology itself. You used a gun and killed someone? Well, guns don't take shots by themselves. They aren't conscious. It's clearly your fault...

There are many communes he could go to and hug a tree, his business. No one is forcing him (or anyone else) to remain in cities, use the internet, modern medicine etc.

Why the rest of us should care? That's a mystery only he can address....

sinequanon:


You recognized yourself! Progress.



You remain profoundly brainwashed.

Technology is the exploitation of the environment to service our shortcomings.

Technology leads on to consumerism in the way I Described.

Does technology lead to more consumerism or is it the other way around?
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the zeitgeist movement but Peter Joseph, the leader of the movement, makes an interesting argument for something called artificial scarcity. He suggests that the problem is money, basically.

A society where money is the ultimate reward is self destructive. Well, he has a lot of YouTube appearances, so let me know what you think of his argument. Here's one famous quote from his book, I believe:

"Our entire system, in an economic sense, is based on restriction. Scarcity and inefficiency are the movers of money; the more there is of any resource the less you can charge for it. The more problems there are, the more opportunities there are to make money.

This reality is a social disease, for people can actually gain off the misery of others and the destruction of the environment. Efficiency, abundance and sustainability are enemies of our economic structure, for they are inverse to the mechanics required to perpetuate consumption.

This is profoundly critical to understand, for once you put this together you begin to see that the one billion people currently starving on this planet, the endless slums of the poor and all the horrors of a culture due to poverty and pravity are not natural phenomenon due to some natural human order or lack of earthly resources. They are products of the creation, perpetuation and preservation of artificial scarcity and inefficiency."

I am ignoring those who have a history of ranting and flying off the handle. They have little or nothing to offer on the topic, and discussion would not be worth their inevitable tantrums.

Now..

It is the underclasses who say, "first put bread on my table, then I can think of principles".

Great societies were inspired by people who would not be deterred by the travails of the flesh. They held their principles dear despite it.

Moral weakness is why the underclasses remain enslaved in their never never land.

Weah96:


Does technology lead to more consumerism or is it the other way around?
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the zeitgeist movement but Peter Joseph, the leader of the movement, makes an interesting argument for something called artificial scarcity. He suggests that the problem is money, basically.

A society where money is the ultimate reward is self destructive. Well, he has a lot of YouTube appearances, so let me know what you think of his argument. Here's one famous quote from his book, I believe:

"Our entire system, in an economic sense, is based on restriction. Scarcity and inefficiency are the movers of money; the more there is of any resource the less you can charge for it. The more problems there are, the more opportunities there are to make money.

This reality is a social disease, for people can actually gain off the misery of others and the destruction of the environment. Efficiency, abundance and sustainability are enemies of our economic structure, for they are inverse to the mechanics required to perpetuate consumption.

This is profoundly critical to understand, for once you put this together you begin to see that the one billion people currently starving on this planet, the endless slums of the poor and all the horrors of a culture due to poverty and pravity are not natural phenomenon due to some natural human order or lack of earthly resources. They are products of the creation, perpetuation and preservation of artificial scarcity and inefficiency."

This is exactly what I hinted before; that we have constructed and live a complex and rigid social and economic monstrocities based on Adam Smith's inspired illusion of scarcity.

Nothing free or efficient can function in this system. No free energy, no efficiency that does not guarantee an advantage to some will ever succeed in this socially engineered system.

The good news is that we are still evolving and maturing. I personally think that this present scarcity/ debt system has reached it's peak, at a tangental point, and might be on the verge of collapse.

The bad news is that in history, wars and conflicts are the natural precipitates of social change and social re-engineering, the reset button, so to speak.
It just needs a precipitate, a trigger

sinequanon:
I am ignoring those who have a history of ranting and flying off the handle. They have little or nothing to offer on the topic, and discussion would not be worth their inevitable tantrums.

Now..
I
It is the underclasses who say, "first put bread on my table, then I can think of principles".

Great societies were inspired by people who would not be deterred by the travails of the flesh. They held their principles dear despite it.

Moral weakness is why the underclasses remain enslaved in their never never land.

Ehhmm, ....sire,
Would you be kind enough to mention few examples of these great societies that were inspired by people who were detached from the travails of the flesh?
Thank you.