NationStates Jolt Archive

That, my friend, is the biggest lie about modern civilization. How many hours a week do people have to work to earn money to live comfortably? For some lucky folks its 40 hours or less. For many people, its much more. Sometimes 10-12 hours a day! For hunter-gatherer societies they only had to work for several hours (less than 8) each day for all their needs. The rest (16+ hours) was used for games, socializing, and relaxing. Also, most people on the planet barely make it each day, and live in poverty, or near poverty lines. Its important to look outside your own well of area once in a while.

You're the OP aren't you, coming back after your puppet got banned.

As for hunter gatherer societies only working less than 8 hours a day, lol!

Try hunting with nothing but a spear and your bare hands. Or maybe just rocks and sharp sticks. And lets not forget that hunter gatherer societies had to follow the herds. You spent more than a few hours. You spent days, sometimes months following them before they settled. Good luck if one of the womenfolk are pregnant en route.

Relaxing? Rubbish. Try making some clothes out of fur, with rocks, salt and your bare hands and you'll see how much work that is.

You want to talk about poverty? Most hunter gatherer societies would be at that level, or worse.

So what your arguing is ignorance is bliss? Because they were ignorant they couldn't suffer as much because they didn't know as much? Thats what it boils down to.

No.

The argument is that class society, modern labor, and sometimes symbolic culture are alienating and unfree... and that the only way to solve these problems is to return to pre-agricultural society.

That, my friend, is the biggest lie about modern civilization. How many hours a week do people have to work to earn money to live comfortably? For some lucky folks its 40 hours or less. For many people, its much more. Sometimes 10-12 hours a day! For hunter-gatherer societies they only had to work for several hours (less than 8) each day for all their needs. The rest (16+ hours) was used for games, socializing, and relaxing. Also, most people on the planet barely make it each day, and live in poverty, or near poverty lines. Its important to look outside your own well of area once in a while.

Actually I live in one of the poorest places in America. Eastern Kentucky, Appalachian mountains. So don't lecture me on poverty. And guess what the entire world shows to the contrary of your 'theories' ..... technology ends poverty and hunger.... wow... And how do they know how many hours a day people worked when there were no WRITTEN records!!?? Here's the simple thing. They don't. And a guess is a guess is a guess.

As for hunter gatherer societies only working less than 8 hours a day, lol!

well, per day is a poor way to measure it. but under 20 per week is typical. and that's in the truly shitty places where agriculturalists had pushed the few remaining groups by the time anyone started looking in to this stuff.

No! People started out almost perfect in hunter gather societies! Agriculture screwed that up!

Again how do you know? We can only tell what we know from WRITTEN HISTORY! Anything before records is conjecture`(AKA guessing...). Written history tends to agree with me.

You're the OP aren't you, coming back after your puppet got banned.

As for hunter gatherer societies only working less than 8 hours a day, lol!

Try hunting with nothing but a spear and your bare hands. Or maybe just rocks and sharp sticks. And lets not forget that hunter gatherer societies had to follow the herds. You spent more than a few hours. You spent days, sometimes months following them before they settled. Good luck if one of the womenfolk are pregnant en route.

Relaxing? Rubbish. Try making some clothes out of fur, with rocks, salt and your bare hands and you'll see how much work that is.

You want to talk about poverty? Most hunter gatherer societies would be at that level, or worse.

I'm flattered you think I'm the original poster, but I'm not. I fully intend to go out and try to survive in the wild in the near future (next 5 years or so). I agree that their societies would be considered poor, materially, but hunter-gatherers weren't materialists, they carried what they needed to survive. They valued human interactions and relationships, not material things.

Because I've heard the arguments before

Really? Which ones?

moralizing westerners who feel guilty about their levels of consumption.

"Consumption"?

While most primitivists criticize the ecological destruction and social structures associated with mass consumption, and might argue that the exclusive focus on consumption is indicative of alienation, they don't really have any problem with consumption as such.

No.

The argument is that class society, modern labor, and sometimes symbolic culture are alienating and unfree... and that the only way to solve these problems is to return to pre-agricultural society.

So ignorance is bliss. Without technology we would have no concepts of those (because we wouldn't have as much free time to think about abstract things) and so without all that, but with all the work, toil, disease and death we'd be all fine and dandy, because we didn't know any better. Alot of people use this as the argument to abandon Africa to its fate. Sick.

We can only tell what we know from WRITTEN HISTORY!

:rolleyes:

Again how do you know? We can only tell what we know from WRITTEN HISTORY!

or, you know, looking at existing and recently existing societies, and examining archaeological evidence. but that's just crazy talk, i suppose.

I'm flattered you think I'm the original poster, but I'm not. I fully intend to go out and try to survive in the wild in the near future (next 5 years or so). I agree that their societies would be considered poor, materially, but hunter-gatherers weren't materialists, they carried what they needed to survive. They valued human interactions and relationships, not material things.

So thats why they began to invent material things? Again your premise fails on this. If things were so great then why did the whole world change? I mean mass communication didn't exist so you can't blame it on a small group of people wanting to conquer the world. How do you explain the whole world changing if this way of life was so great?

Really? Which ones?
An awful lot of them, is it really worth my time to recount what I consider to be pure baloney? No, it isn't.



"Consumption"?

While most primitivists criticize the ecological destruction and social structures associated with mass consumption, and might argue that the exclusive focus on consumption is indicative of alienation, they don't really have any problem with consumption as such.

It doesn't matter what they talk about, rather their internal motivations, conscious or unconscious.

or, you know, looking at existing and recently existing societies, and examining archaeological evidence. but that's just crazy talk, i suppose.

looking at existing and recently existing socities tends to prove that technology improves living standards. Whereas low-tech civilizations are poor, disease ridden and horrid. And examining some hand held tools can tell us the amount of hours people worked a day? I don't think so.

Ignorance is bliss.

If something bad is happening to you, you are probably not ignorant of it, and if something bad is happening to you, you are probably not blissful.

If nothing is harming you, you are probably ignorant of whatever could harm you, and if nothing is harming you, you are probably blissful.

For example:
You are ignorant of the fact that fire is hot. You contemplate placing your leg into the fire, you are blissful, unaware that it will hurt.
You then place your leg in the fire. It is hot. You are now in pain, no longer ignorant of the fact that fire is hot.

Which is probably a good thing, because if we get rid of a lot of technology, we are going to be needed them flames.

but with all the work, toil, disease and death

What work, toil, disease, and death?

Work, toil, disease, and death that, with the exception of disease and death for the very young, was either much less or about equivalent to levels enjoyed with modern technology?

we'd be all fine and dandy, because we didn't know any better.

No. Because, the argument goes, we would actually be better off without wasting our lives on alienating and degrading labor to serve the rulers and owners.

[QUOTE=Droskianishk;12687620]looking at existing and recently existing socities tends to prove that technology improves living standards. Whereas low-tech civilizations are poor, disease ridden and horrid. And examining some hand held tools can tell us the amount of hours people worked a day? I don't think so.[/QUOTET]
Your regurgitating civilzations lies again, my friend.

[QUOTE=Droskianishk;12687620]looking at existing and recently existing socities tends to prove that technology improves living standards. Whereas low-tech civilizations are poor, disease ridden and horrid. And examining some hand held tools can tell us the amount of hours people worked a day? I don't think so.[/QUOTET]
Your regurgitating civilzations lies again, my friend.


Really? I think these are pretty self evident truths. I mean there use to be a thing called common sense. I guess college students can't be bothered with that.

It doesn't matter what they talk about

Thus, your problem.

I mean there use to be a thing called common sense.

And there used to be a thing called "empirical evidence," too.

Generally, it trumps common sense.

Well, since life without a lot of technology would be rather like the following, I'm up for giving it a try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPVg2Mq_U-o

What work, toil, disease, and death?

Work, toil, disease, and death that, with the exception of disease and death for the very young, was either much less or about equivalent to levels enjoyed with modern technology?



No. Because, the argument goes, we would actually be better off without wasting our lives on alienating and degrading labor to serve the rulers and owners.


Ok I can see the social argument here I really can, and I disagree with it but I can accept that as a more reasonable argument. But technology doesn't cause that, with the exception that it free's up time for us to study and to think about abstract concepts. But if your going to tell me that ancient societies had higher survival rates of diseases than we do and a longer life span, I don't think so.

And there used to be a thing called "empirical evidence," too.

Generally, it trumps common sense.

Generally empirical evidence in this case is solidly on my side. Look at hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa, and compare them with America. Your going to tell me that they have less disease, work less, and have more? Nonsense, theres a reason Sub-Saharan Africa is the least important region in the world and America is the most. Technology.

I'm flattered you think I'm the original poster, but I'm not. I fully intend to go out and try to survive in the wild in the near future (next 5 years or so).


Make sure you try to hunt herds that already have predators. Like deer and mountain wolves/cats. If they take issue, you can argue with rocks and sharp sticks. You want to have a real hunter gatherer experience, you'd have to face the fact that dinner might be marked by somebody else who might not have compunctions about ripping your throat out.


I agree that their societies would be considered poor, materially, but hunter-gatherers weren't materialists, they carried what they needed to survive. They valued human interactions and relationships, not material things.

Eh, they also valued living to the next day. They carried what they needed to survive cause that's all that they could get.

this poll has been thoroughly pwned by the "We need more technology not less, this will fix the problems." option...

looking at existing and recently existing socities tends to prove that technology improves living standards.

well, only after the massive collapse of them caused by the rise of agriculture and hierarchy. we only just recently got back to our original life expectancies in the richest countries in the world ever. and we still aren't as healthy.

But technology doesn't cause that

Class society requires enough of a surplus product to support the rulers and their enforcers, and technology does make this easier. The advanced division of labor associated with technology also can concentrate power in a specialist class.

Labor that is not freely undertaken, and that is undertaken for the sake of someone else, is part and parcel of class society. Add to that the fact that modern forms of labor are radically different from the forms of "labor" towards which we are naturally inclined, and you have a very good case that labor in technological societies will tend to be alienating and unfree.

I think that there's a non-primitivist partial solution to this problem within the possibilities offered by anarchist communism, but still, only partial, and possibly unworkable.

But if your going to tell me that ancient societies had higher survival rates of diseases than we do and a longer life span, I don't think so.

Not ancient societies per se, no. Pre-agricultural ones, because they enjoyed a diet and lifestyle that were suited to our natural make-up.

Modern health care has mostly been concerned with curing the diseases caused in the first place by civilization and agriculture.

Make sure you try to hunt herds that already have predators. Like deer and mountain wolves/cats. If they take issue, you can argue with rocks and sharp sticks. You want to have a real hunter gatherer experience, you'd have to face the fact that dinner might be marked by somebody else who might not have compunctions about ripping your throat out.



Eh, they also valued living to the next day. They carried what they needed to survive cause that's all that they could get.

True, I guess. I'll just have to be careful. I don't intend to just walk out with no knowledge of survival, like some kid did in Alaska several years ago. I intend to go out with plently of knowledge of wilderness survival.

this poll has been thoroughly pwned by the "We need more technology not less, this will fix the problems." option...

That it has, but we who voted for option one are a very vocal minority! Perhaps we can create a lobby group...:p

Class society requires enough of a surplus product to support the rulers and their enforcers, and technology does make this easier. The advanced division of labor associated with technology also can concentrate power in a specialist class.

Labor that is not freely undertaken, and that is undertaken for the sake of someone else, is part and parcel of class society. Add to that the fact that modern forms of labor are radically different from the forms of "labor" towards which we are naturally inclined, and you have a very good case that labor in technological societies will tend to be alienating and unfree.

I think that there's a non-primitivist partial solution to this problem within the possibilities offered by anarchist communism, but still, only partial, and possibly unworkable.



Not ancient societies per se, no. Pre-agricultural ones, because they enjoyed a diet and lifestyle that were suited to our natural make-up.

Modern health care has mostly been concerned with curing the diseases caused in the first place by civilization and agriculture.

That was a very well put response. I need more patience to respond effectively like that...the curse of youth, impatience!

True, I guess. I'll just have to be careful. I don't intend to just walk out with no knowledge of survival, like some kid did in Alaska several years ago. I intend to go out with plently of knowledge of wilderness survival.

No modern equipment. No telecommunications gear. No medication or first aid kits. Not even a hunting knife. Also, no modern day clothes. I'll be generous and say you can start off with a cured hide and a stone sharpened stick.

And definitely no chicken switch. If you get an infected wound or serious injury, no calling 911. The real hunter gatherer experience includes facing death from infection and gaping wounds.

Oh yeah, also, no boiling furs to use as bandages. You've got to use them sun dried or wet. Nobody knew anything about disinfection back then.

My bet? You'll either cheat, or you'll never come back to NSG.

if you destroyed all of the technology that exists today, in less than 500 years it would all be back so there's really no point :gundge:

if you destroyed all of the technology that exists today, in less than 500 years it would all be back so there's really no point :gundge:

depends on the method of destruction, surely?

The question originally presented was: If you could change the world so that all modern technology was reduced to that of 500 years ago, would it be worth it?

In other words, was life "better" 500 years ago?

Define "better." Better = happier (?)

The two sides of this argument define happiness differently, i.e. more stuff versus less stuff. The premise is that the people of five hundred years ago had less stuff and were able to depend on themselves solely. This is incorrect. The rabbit example is r-tarded because late medieval peasants of central Europe subsisted almost entirely on agriculture; the land was reserved under the most extreme penalty for its respective lord. Even if we pretend that they did hunt, they had (oh snap!) sixteenth century technology which included innumerable weapons and traps. That's right- TRAPS! I'll refer back to that picture somebody posted a couple times several pages back. It definitely oversimplifies the matter a bit, but the point remains: survival, especially as a community, is not impossible. Your assumption that people today have somehow grown weak and helpless over the course of five hundred years is *interesting*, mostly because you are inadvertently making yourself into the sole example of digression. :headbang: Although we should take into account the fact that you have both defended and belittled the peasant lifestyle, as well as doing the same for modern people. Anyway, the commoner of the 1500s simply had different stuff, which they depended on for survival, whereas modern western society's consumer goods are just that- consumer goods designed for enjoyment.

The basic flaw with both sides of the argument is that we tend to equate happiness with physical things in some way. Either in our treasuring of these things, or in our ability to take them for granted. The real key to happiness is in letting go of our material positions- that doesn't necessarily mean giving away everything we own, but in not allowing ourselves to become attached to them. With this logic, it seems that sixteenth century-ites would be happier, but they are not because their very existence is dependent on transient, physical things, while today, we are still tied by the same basic physical human needs: food, shelter, etc.

Tired of typing. Somebody extend this (or disprove it- whichever seems slightly less idiotic).

The thing is that technology is our own evolutionary trait/specialisation now, so us improving our technology is merely us further evolving.

About the waste produced by humans: As long as we get our act together and research new and improved systems (such as improved efficiency electrical cells and photovoltaic systems) along with improving efficiency of our current systems and research further into space flight we should be set.

Global warming is natural, we are only making it worse. I think this post is kind of silly though, considering that the Internet is technology, anyone who wishes Technology would go away, and says so on the internet is at best a hypocrite. Using technology to espouse the belief that technology is bad is kind of silly. Just remember, without technology we would all die of fear and old age at 27.

The people who are 40 and older today are healthier then they have EVER been. A 40 year old of today is the equivalent of a 25 year old of 50 years ago. Why? Pennicilin, polio vaccine. We are only "less" healthy because we eat too much. Before mcdonalds the problem was people having too "little" to eat. Believe me, Obesity causes FAR FAR FAR less problems then malnutrution in growing children. We are also about 6 inches taller then our forebears of 100 years ago as well. We live TWICE as long. Its very simple, the only ancient societies with life expectancies of 60 had decent medicine. We were NOT healthier back then. The only thing that we could say was better back without technology was....well...hmmm...you could....well you get to sleep under the stars every night, and in the rain..hopefully you dont catch pneumonia too badly...

Well, theoretically energy is infinite. We can build as many solar panels or geothermal plants as we like and get as much energy as we need. It obviously costs more, but if you can afford to buy the electrical goods you define as unnecessary you can probably afford to pay for expensive electricity. Anyway, fusion has will get here eventually.

Energy isn't infinite. It seems like it is for our current needs but there is a limited output from the sun (if we are talking about sun based energy instead of earth based fusion or geothermal systems).

I say bring on the Dyson Sphere.

they didnt have the threat of nuclear war, chemical war etc because they didnt have that technology... and no they dont face the issues we face today, and vica verca, you really seem to be clueless about how different the times are.

They had biological warfare *looks at corpses being launched*

To all you luddites out there - get off the Internet, please. Go and eat your food cooked in a pot over a wood-burning fire for 4 hours, that you had to catch with little more than your wits, which was probably more trouble than it was worth, before then going to the toilet and wiping your arse with either moss or your left hand, depending on which is more easily available.

Oh and best of luck with living if you get any kind of illness at all.

Energy isn't infinite. It seems like it is for our current needs but there is a limited output from the sun (if we are talking about sun based energy instead of earth based fusion or geothermal systems).

I say bring on the Dyson Sphere.

Hmm, I doubt that we're ever going to use more energy than the sun can provide. If our population gets that big other resources will be just as much of a problem. Nuclear fusion is more practical IMO. I mean, we can actually do it, although not on a viable scale. Building a gigantic sphere around the sun? Doesn't seem likely to me.

By the way, how does option 3 work? If you have medicine you need a distribution system. If you have steam trains (which pollute more than electric trains, right? :rolleyes:) you need to build the rails.

To all you luddites out there - get off the Internet, please. Go and eat your food cooked in a pot over a wood-burning fire for 4 hours, that you had to catch with little more than your wits, which was probably more trouble than it was worth, before then going to the toilet and wiping your arse with either moss or your left hand, depending on which is more easily available.

Oh and best of luck with living if you get any kind of illness at all.

How did we ever survive for thousands of years without modern technology? If anything, we have become so dependent on technology we are less resilient than before.

I know how to spin, weave, churn butter, build a trap, skin a rabbit and cook it so the parasites are destroyed. I can cure a ham, plant and harvest vegetables, milk a cow. And I'm a city girl. What can you do?

The fact that I can do these things, does not mean that I wish to be forced to do them because you have angst.

You're a girl? Thats Hawt, let's cyber!

........Now you see the unintended consequences of technology!

Global warming is natural, we are only making it worse.

actually, we appear to be overwhelming a slight non-anthropogenic cooling trend (on top of overwhelming a larger cooling force caused by anthropogenic pollution).

Just remember, without technology we would all die of fear and old age at 27.

this is wrong in one of two ways, at least. the question is, what do you mean by 'without technology'

Hmm, I doubt that we're ever going to use more energy than the sun can provide. If our population gets that big other resources will be just as much of a problem. Nuclear fusion is more practical IMO. I mean, we can actually do it, although not on a viable scale. Building a gigantic sphere around the sun? Doesn't seem likely to me.

By the way, how does option 3 work? If you have medicine you need a distribution system. If you have steam trains (which pollute more than electric trains, right? :rolleyes:) you need to build the rails.

Well we won't need to make a dyson sphere for a while but we will for:

1) Producing mass amounts of rare elements.

2) Producing enough energy for incredibly energy intensive systems (such as a solar system wide detection grid)

This wouldn't be a Dyson Sphere that is the shell type, there wouldn't be enough material to produce an effective one. I was thinking more along the lines of of the dyson bubble, that way it can be made individually instead of having to be made as a complete system. It also allows sections to be open, so that the planets could have some sunlight.

You could have a series of fusion stations on each planet providing the base power. Jupiter would probably be very rich from being a ship/planet hydrogen fueler.

What is option 3?

Well we won't need to make a dyson sphere for a while but we will for:

1) Producing mass amounts of rare elements.

2) Producing enough energy for incredibly energy intensive systems (such as a solar system wide detection grid)

This wouldn't be a Dyson Sphere that is the shell type, there wouldn't be enough material to produce an effective one. I was thinking more along the lines of of the dyson bubble, that way it can be made individually instead of having to be made as a complete system. It also allows sections to be open, so that the planets could have some sunlight.

You could have a series of fusion stations on each planet providing the base power. Jupiter would probably be very rich from being a ship/planet hydrogen fueler.

What is option 3?
I don't know enough about Dyson spheres, all I know is that it's putting loads of satellites around a star to collect power. How does producing rare elements work with the sphere, or is it just generating the energy to make rare elements through other means?

Option 3 in the poll.

Yes, but keep certain technological advances like medicene, and steam trains

If anything, we have become so dependent on technology we are less resilient than before.

nah, we just have a different skill set. we are exactly as smart as we ever were and can just as easily learn everything that we need to know in pretty much any social situation. the hard part would be coming off the addiction and getting back into good physical condition.

if only because we have largely lost the knowledge of how to survive without technology and our numbers have exceded the capacity of our environment to support us without that technology. we haven't exactly evolved to be 'technological'. physiologically we have barely evolved beyond hunter-gatherers.

Yet even the ancestors of our species used tools. Their most effective ways of surviving was to use tools in conjunction with the group in an effort to achieve something (usually getting a kill in a hunter style group).

People have this idea that humans are a weak animal that would be unable to get by without technology. This just plain isn't true, especially in North America: around here we're about on par with a wolf, and only beaten by a bobcat or a bear. Give a man a sharp stick and he can even have good odds against the bobcat. And that's ignoring a human's intelligence, which allows him to turn his spear wielding into an artform, and get damn good at it.

a human is fairly durable, rather stronger than most animals, and able to climb. We can eat both meat and plants. We're up there near the top of the food chain even without our intelligence.

Now let that human figure out how to make a crude bow (that's the first thing I'd do, once I managed to get a deer with my sharp stick and could eat for a few days.) This could be accomplished by finding one good, straight stave, and carving notches into it, with a sharp rock, if necessary. then a willowy branch would serve as a string, at least for a couple of shots. You'd have to replace the string all the damn time, and it wouldn't work about 25% of the time, but it would be enough to let a human be a match for nearly any other animal.

I don't know enough about Dyson spheres, all I know is that it's putting loads of satellites around a star to collect power. How does producing rare elements work with the sphere, or is it just generating the energy to make rare elements through other means?

Option 3 in the poll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

The main types are moving satellites, a solid shell to live on (or collect energy) or stationary satellites.

You can have the rare element (or isotope) production by either having a sample of material and constantly fusing it to achieve a certain element/isotope (as fusion past iron requires energy to be put in to the equation it would be best for high atomic mass elements).

You could either use the stream of helium/hydrogen atoms coming off the sun as the material source.

Option 3 does seem rather out of place...

Physiologically speaking, humans are not at all helpless. The weakness you see in people today has nothing to do with some evolutionary digression, it's just that they don't have to live the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. But, we are built for it, so, given a little experience, survival is not at all out of the question, we've come this far, haven't we? Oh yeah, the opposable thumbs thing can be pretty convenient.

It's probably for the best that I couldn't find the words to describe the staggering vastness of the OP's stupidity.

People have this idea that humans are a weak animal that would be unable to get by without technology. This just plain isn't true, especially in North America: around here we're about on par with a wolf, and only beaten by a bobcat or a bear. Give a man a sharp stick and he can even have good odds against the bobcat. And that's ignoring a human's intelligence, which allows him to turn his spear wielding into an artform, and get damn good at it.

Your average north American man is especially adapted for living in the wild?

Humanity will never stop producing and utilizing technology. Its what our mind evolved for, to use tools and to produce better ones to get the job done better.

Your average north American man is especially adapted for living in the wild?

not especially. equally, though.

Humanity will never stop producing and utilizing technology. Its what our mind evolved for, to use tools and to produce better ones to get the job done better.

on this hypothesis, how is it possible for a culture's technological level to decrease?

not especially. equally, though.

So Glorious Alpha Complex lives up to his name?

Would we be better off without it?
A resounding FUCK NO!

How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished,
So modern medicine, good shelter for all, abundant food supplies, etc. should all just be chucked? WTF, man. WTF. World Trade Federation. They trade worlds to other worlds. Srsly, they're selling Uranus to Jupiter right now.

imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it,
What longterm benefits? A lower life-expectancy? A life full of toil and hardship? People armed with muskets lining up in neat little rows when they go to war over the scarce resources constantly being gobbled up by an ever-increasing, but now suffering population?

The whole reason for cars was providing the common man with long-ranged personal transport. Take that away he can't go far. Give him a train and he can only go where the track takes him.

especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
Seriously, all you need for a nuke is buttload of pitchblend, a hand-crank centrifuge, and a cannon. For all the phear of nucular lollercaust it has never happened and just about nobody is scared shitless of it these days except for the aging, leftist, hippy douchebaggeries of the world.

A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
A world without rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean? I think you need a grammer nazi to help you with that one.

In shrt (cat we trust) it ain't the whole world that's polluted, it's mostly cities and developing countries because the people either don't actually give a shit but like to say they do (cities) or they simply can't afford all the fancy gadgets and gizmos that make car exhaust smell like a garden (developin countries).

The truth is that logging companies plant more trees than they cut down; they have to by law. The truth is that PETA slaughters most of the animals it takes off the streets because they say they don't have room for them all (you'd be suprised at how much space so many protest signs can take up).

Would it really be that bad?
Worse than you could apparently imagine.

You do not move forward as a species or a society by constantly looking to the past and especially not by trying to relive it. The belief that the world would be better off without technology is just plain regressive.

Would it really be that bad?
Oh HELL YES!!

no technology. thus those fancy pacemakers, replacement limbs, teeth fillings... all gone.

those pesky plastics and other synthetics... all gone.

Refrigeration, food storage, even the genetic tampering to make foods last longer... all gone.

medicine? Drugs? all gone, imagine, no condoms, no Pills, no Asprin

think about your jobs. how much rely on Computers, plastics, and other technology found within those 500 yrs. all gone.

all those people, now without food (or rotting food) and with no sewer system, you can count on diseases claiming alot of lives. and all those rotting bodies will have to be put somewhere...

Infant mortality rates... heck, mortailty rates all around would skyrocket as those trained in MODERN medicine would find themselves without the knowledge of frontier medicine.

assuming Technology won't regress, people will have to redisover the tools they need to use. and that rediscovery will only lead us back down the same path and back to the same situation.

People have this idea that humans are a weak animal that would be unable to get by without technology. This just plain isn't true, especially in North America: around here we're about on par with a wolf, and only beaten by a bobcat or a bear. Give a man a sharp stick and he can even have good odds against the bobcat. And that's ignoring a human's intelligence, which allows him to turn his spear wielding into an artform, and get damn good at it.

a human is fairly durable, rather stronger than most animals, and able to climb. We can eat both meat and plants. We're up there near the top of the food chain even without our intelligence.

Now let that human figure out how to make a crude bow (that's the first thing I'd do, once I managed to get a deer with my sharp stick and could eat for a few days.) This could be accomplished by finding one good, straight stave, and carving notches into it, with a sharp rock, if necessary. then a willowy branch would serve as a string, at least for a couple of shots. You'd have to replace the string all the damn time, and it wouldn't work about 25% of the time, but it would be enough to let a human be a match for nearly any other animal.
and it will take time to adapt. your average New Yorker may know how to use a knife, but can he MAKE one.

then there's the Hunting Grounds. where would the average Manhattan dweller hunt?

Ratburgers?

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

This has to be the most Ironic thing ever. You want us to get rid of all of our tech, and you ask us on the Internet? you are not very bright.

and it will take time to adapt. your average New Yorker may know how to use a knife, but can he MAKE one.

then there's the Hunting Grounds. where would the average Manhattan dweller hunt?

Ratburgers?

They would have to leave or die.

Oh HELL YES!!

no technology. thus those fancy pacemakers, replacement limbs, teeth fillings... all gone.

those pesky plastics and other synthetics... all gone.

Refrigeration, food storage, even the genetic tampering to make foods last longer... all gone.

medicine? Drugs? all gone, imagine, no condoms, no Pills, no Asprin

think about your jobs. how much rely on Computers, plastics, and other technology found within those 500 yrs. all gone.

all those people, now without food (or rotting food) and with no sewer system, you can count on diseases claiming alot of lives. and all those rotting bodies will have to be put somewhere...

Infant mortality rates... heck, mortailty rates all around would skyrocket as those trained in MODERN medicine would find themselves without the knowledge of frontier medicine.

assuming Technology won't regress, people will have to redisover the tools they need to use. and that rediscovery will only lead us back down the same path and back to the same situation.

No, because people will learn what a shit hole technology leads to. Look at the state of the world today. Is is really great? Do you actually think it will get better? The ecosystem is on the verge of collapsing, threatening all life on earth, including humans. Guess what, its our fault! Look at society. It is nothing but rampant consumerism and materialism focused on artificial wants and needs. Its all a giant scam so the elite get rich. Now I know you'll argue about all the great and wonderful gadgets people have, but they are only there to distract people from the bleak reality that is the modern world. Modern people are slaves to industry, to progress. It sickens me- and I fall into the trap myself! The first step towards rectifying the situation, however, is seeing the problem exists and thinking about ways to change it. My proposal is to go back to hunter-gather societies. Read the articles I posted earlier in the thread for more reasons about how life really wasn't 'nasty, brutish, and short', to quote...Locke, I believe.

They would have to leave or die.

That is good because...

Humanity will never stop producing and utilizing technology. Its what our mind evolved for, to use tools and to produce better ones to get the job done better.

Humanity is only here to produce? Your goal in life is to produe? You're a good little slave to the machine, no offense intended. People should not while away their lives producing. They actually LIVE their lives, laugh, love, mourn, play, and experience the world first hand. Not just watch on the tv after work.

That is good because...

Its not good for them, but its good for humanity in general, the planet, and every other species, animal, plant, etc in the world.

And when we've achieved this utopia where we live in perfect harmony with the world around us, where no one wants or suffers. Where no species lives under the threat of man induced extinction, where we able able to sustain this indefinitely. What happens four or five billion years from now when Sol begins to fuse helium and becomes a red giant? Should we just accept the extinction of all life on Earth?

Humanity is only here to produce? Your goal in life is to produe? You're a good little slave to the machine, no offense intended. People should not while away their lives producing. They actually LIVE their lives, laugh, love, mourn, play, and experience the world first hand. Not just watch on the tv after work.
So...I'm guessing you majored in unemployment. :p

And when we've achieved this utopia where we live in perfect harmony with the world around us, where no one wants or suffers. Where no species lives under the threat of man induced extinction, where we able able to sustain this indefinitely. What happens four or five billion years from now when Sol begins to fuse helium and becomes a red giant? Should we just accept the extinction of all life on Earth?

Yes.

No, because people will learn what a shit hole technology leads to. Look at the state of the world today. Is is really great?

Compared to what it was for many people in first world countries it is. Compared to the fact that we have a greater population, which allows greater diversity in thinking we are better off.

Do you actually think it will get better?

Most definately. That is the wonderful thing about technological progress: Things tend to either get more efficient or be replaced by better systems.

The ecosystem is on the verge of collapsing, threatening all life on earth, including humans.

How did we find that out? Using modern technology and research methods.

How do we solve it? Using modern technology and information gathered from research methods. Things such as artificial reefs don't come about on their own you know.

Guess what, its our fault! Look at society. It is nothing but rampant consumerism and materialism focused on artificial wants and needs.

I'd agree that having such short obsolescence times on many goods is bad yet the solution to that is chuck them all away?

Its all a giant scam so the elite get rich. Now I know you'll argue about all the great and wonderful gadgets people have, but they are only there to distract people from the bleak reality that is the modern world.

The bleak reality? Since life is really what we make of it any point in our species' history could be considered bleak.

Modern people are slaves to industry, to progress.

Whereas hunter-gatherers were slaves to the animal herds or to certain patches of sea/land.

It sickens me- and I fall into the trap myself! The first step towards rectifying the situation, however, is seeing the problem exists and thinking about ways to change it.

Yet the problem is not progress. It is reckless use of systems before they are checked out and if they are already in use the refusal to not change.

My proposal is to go back to hunter-gather societies.

Which not only is impractical for modern times and if you did that then either someone would bring back various technologies from memmory, or if they had no memmory of it, you would be back in the same situation in about a couple hundred thousand years.

Read the articles I posted earlier in the thread for more reasons about how life really wasn't 'nasty, brutish, and short', to quote...Locke, I believe.

It was most definately a short life.

Do you think they all hopped down paths, sing aloud whilst picking berries off a tree?

Humanity is only here to produce? Your goal in life is to produe? You're a good little slave to the machine, no offense intended. People should not while away their lives producing.

It is not the only reason but humanity as a group does have a tendency to provide for the group.

Also what is a human if not a biological machine? Hunter-gatherers spent their lives providing for the group so in essence they werre 'slaves to the machine' that is a human.

If you don't realise it already: Hunting and gathering are both producing something for the group. We are (for the most part) not solitary creatures. We spend our lives producing ever since our initial appearance as humans.

They actually LIVE their lives, laugh, love, mourn, play, and experience the world first hand. Not just watch on the tv after work.

Technology/improvements in communication allows us to experience more of the world.

The better the machines the less work hours are required for the same level of product. The reason why workhours haven't decreased as much as they could have was because of an increase in population.

Yes.

Why?

Say in two hundred years the environment hasn't stuffed up. Let us also assume that we have extremely powerful interplanetary rockets and al bog off from earth to live in the solar system (as space stations or on/at the planets themselves).

Would that be something you would like? We would have left Earth so we wouldn'y have to be 'contaminating' it.

Compared to what it was for many people in first world countries it is. Compared to the fact that we have a greater population, which allows greater diversity in thinking we are better off.



Most definately. That is the wonderful thing about technological progress: Things tend to either get more efficient or be replaced by better systems.



How did we find that out? Using modern technology and research methods.

How do we solve it? Using modern technology and information gathered from research methods. Things such as artificial reefs don't come about on their own you know.



I'd agree that having such short obsolescence times on many goods is bad yet the solution to that is chuck them all away?



The bleak reality? Since life is really what we make of it any point in our species' history could be considered bleak.



Whereas hunter-gatherers were slaves to the animal herds or to certain patches of sea/land.



Yet the problem is not progress. It is reckless use of systems before they are checked out and if they are already in use the refusal to not change.



Which not only is impractical for modern times and if you did that then either someone would bring back various technologies from memmory, or if they had no memmory of it, you would be back in the same situation in about a couple hundred thousand years.



It was most definately a short life.

Do you think they all hopped down paths, sing aloud whilst picking berries off a tree?



It is not the only reason but humanity as a group does have a tendency to provide for the group.

Also what is a human if not a biological machine? Hunter-gatherers spent their lives providing for the group so in essence they werre 'slaves to the machine' that is a human.

If you don't realise it already: Hunting and gathering are both producing something for the group. We are (for the most part) not solitary creatures. We spend our lives producing ever since our initial appearance as humans.



Technology/improvements in communication allows us to experience more of the world.

The better the machines the less work hours are required for the same level of product. The reason why workhours haven't decreased as much as they could have was because of an increase in population.



Why?

Say in two hundred years the environment hasn't stuffed up. Let us also assume that we have extremely powerful interplanetary rockets and al bog off from earth to live in the solar system (as space stations or on/at the planets themselves).

Would that be something you would like? We would have left Earth so we wouldn'y have to be 'contaminating' it.

Greater population is one of, if not the, greatest problems. There are simply too many people, consuming, polluting, etc. People shouldn't be told they can't have kids, or anything drastic, but reasonable family planning or something should be introduced.

You could say hunting and gathering is producing. I'll accept that argument, but they only produced enough to survive and spent the rest of their time, as I've stated earlier, in the company of their group relaxing and socializing.

Experiencing the world through technology is an illusion. Watching shows on tv, talking on the internet, like I'm doing now, is fake, it is not 'real', face to face contact. Now, I'll give your argument credibility if you mean using cars/planes to travel to exotic locations to experience them, then, those are usually only vacations from the meaningless drudgery of modern existence.

Using rockets to leave earth? No thanks, I never want to leave. Earth is my home. I made of the earth. I was born here, I will live here, and I will die here.

They would have to leave or die.
and that puts the burden on another ecosystem/community. so more people starve or worse, you get roving armies taking what they want from smaller communities. nice.

Vast forest and praries will become barren of game as Hundreds of thousands of people move from the cities to the countrysides.

No, because people will learn what a shit hole technology leads to. Look at the state of the world today. Is is really great? Do you actually think it will get better? The ecosystem is on the verge of collapsing, threatening all life on earth, including humans. Guess what, its our fault! Look at society. It is nothing but rampant consumerism and materialism focused on artificial wants and needs. Its all a giant scam so the elite get rich. Now I know you'll argue about all the great and wonderful gadgets people have, but they are only there to distract people from the bleak reality that is the modern world. Modern people are slaves to industry, to progress. It sickens me- and I fall into the trap myself! The first step towards rectifying the situation, however, is seeing the problem exists and thinking about ways to change it. My proposal is to go back to hunter-gather societies. Read the articles I posted earlier in the thread for more reasons about how life really wasn't 'nasty, brutish, and short', to quote...Locke, I believe.
oh yes they will.

some people will see a need. (Moving food from one abundant source to starving people.)

with the knowledge already gained, they will put together a steam engine. the precursor to the internal combustion engine. why? because it's been done, why struggle to find another way when the need they need now can be easily fixed.

and more disasterous because we are starting with LESS resources than in the 1500's.

Humans will follow the same road because 1) it's been done, so people know it works. 2) time wasted trying to find "better ways" will cost in human lives. 3) people nowdays tend not to be fit enough, physically or mentally to suddenly live with 1500 technology.

you gonna sleep in your own filth while others try to find a better solution of dealing with sewage?

You gonna slowly dehydrate while others try to find a "better way" of making potable water?

it's mainly about the ABILITY.

no ships made from steel, Fiberglass or plastics. only wooden boats. so tell me, how would an island community, one dependent on the outside world get their food when their own island cannot provide the resources they need for survival?

no Mechanical aid for farming. so how many miles of crops will be wasted because there is no one there to help harvest.

Alot of people will die. the lucky ones will go quickly, the rest slow and tortuously. and survival insticts will kick in. so you will have roving bands of people moving from one town to another, taking what they want.
that makes a need for quick and easy solutions. back to the steam engine and GUNPOWDER. which will lead to the internal combustion engine.

the same path our ancistors took.

we need the technology to get to alternative energies like Solar, Wind, etc. and moving backwards will only prolong the damage as we will retrace our steps.

you try it. you and your family go into the mountains with nothing that won't exsist in 1505. no automatic rifles, pistols or anything that does NOT use Black Powder.

no knives with rubber handles, infact, no rubber at all, no folding knives, no pocket knives, and nothing but 100% steel, not stainless steel, but pure steel. no metal canteens (didn't exist then) no canned foods, maybe foods packed in SALT. in hand made wooden barrells.

oh and no books... since books today are built with modern tools and materials.

and the clothes... if airplanes vanish, so does anything except 100% cotton and wool. also anything not 100% leather. and NOTHING that was made by a machine... oh and that includes anything DYED with bright vivid colors and prints.

does your underwear have an elastic band?

that's still alot of naked people running around.

only candles made with tallow. no brick homes (since modern concrete won't exsist,) no roads, no rebar so most homes are gone.

so go ahead and try it... for a year... after all, you need to survive and one full turning of the seasons is a reasonable length of time. hope you get that home built before winter... since there is also no internet, no books (only parchment scrolls will be around) good luck finding the know how to do what you need to survive.

that reminds me... no TOOLED tools either. nothing made by a machine...

You did read all those how to books before it dissappeared.... right?

so you cast the world into that situation as suddenly as the OP says, "planes dissappear as the passsengers then fall from the skies" people are going for the quick solution and the quickest solution is the path already taken.

To JuNii: what? I never said go back to 1500s tech, the OP wanted to, but I said we should go back farther, before agriculture ruined everything. And I agree, if we just went back 500 years nothing would really change.

To JuNii: what? I never said go back to 1500s tech, the OP wanted to, but I said we should go back farther, before agriculture ruined everything. And I agree, if we just went back 500 years nothing would really change.

even worse.

no steel, no bronze, think you can make a flint weapon?

remember, no string, so what you gonna use to tie that flint head to the end of your stick, much less a bow...

no clothes, so I hope you got enough hair on your body to keep you warm, else you make enough kills to make that leather jerkin and tent. no cotton, since raising cattle and sheep are a part of agricultural society.

Not even the basics of medicine.

it still goes back to Ability. and people will still take the same path because it's been done and it's known to work. People won't go back that far, because they know the value of agriculture and will endevor to get there. so when you and yours are up in the hills starving, you will look at those with irrigated land and you will be taking and living off of the fruits of "their technology."

Greater population is one of, if not the, greatest problems. There are simply too many people, consuming, polluting, etc. People shouldn't be told they can't have kids, or anything drastic, but reasonable family planning or something should be introduced.

You could say hunting and gathering is producing. I'll accept that argument, but they only produced enough to survive and spent the rest of their time, as I've stated earlier, in the company of their group relaxing and socializing.

Experiencing the world through technology is an illusion. Watching shows on tv, talking on the internet, like I'm doing now, is fake, it is not 'real', face to face contact. Now, I'll give your argument credibility if you mean using cars/planes to travel to exotic locations to experience them, then, those are usually only vacations from the meaningless drudgery of modern existence.

Using rockets to leave earth? No thanks, I never want to leave. Earth is my home. I made of the earth. I was born here, I will live here, and I will die here.
The vast majority of us are here because we are socialising on the internet. We like socialising on the internet. It is equally as good as proper socialisation. You talk to people. The people talk back to you. This is socialisation. Relaxing does not require other people. I prefer to relax alone, in general, and I am rather offended you consider this inferior.

I'm not quite sure how you're going to curb populations, considering developed countries with more technology consistently have lower birth rates.

By the way, has anyone addressed the fact that simply because the earth is so overpopulated, regressing in technology, would, uh, kill billions of people?

People won't go back that far, because they know the value of agriculture and will endevor to get there.

can't know a non-existent thing. agriculture was an absolutely unmitigrated disaster for everybody for just about 10,000 years. recently there has been a moderate amount of mitigation to the ongoing disaster, but its still really fucking bad.. so in so far as they would try to recreate agriculture, it is only because they are ignorant of its effects. that or they are terminally stupid or evil.

By the way, has anyone addressed the fact that simply because the earth is so overpopulated, regressing in technology, would, uh, kill billions of people?

well, it all depends how apocalyptic a primmie is feeling at the moment. you can either favor a multi-generational policy of below replacement level birth rates. which means not killing anybody at all. or you can wait for the coming ecological collapse and/or the primmie purge.

You're a girl? Thats Hawt, let's cyber!

........Now you see the unintended consequences of technology!

You want to cyber with grandma? Cool. If you can overlook the fact that I'm 60 years old.

well, it all depends how apocalyptic a primmie is feeling at the moment. you can either favor a multi-generational policy of below replacement level birth rates. which means not killing anybody at all. or you can wait for the coming ecological collapse and/or the primmie purge.

Yeah, but like I said, lack of technology increases birth rates, which could be a little problem.

You're a girl? Thats Hawt, let's cyber!

........Now you see the unintended consequences of technology!

:eek:

Yeah, but like I said, lack of technology increases birth rates, which could be a little problem.

only when you also have agriculture as your primary source of food. foragers have low birth rates.

(and actually, it is this fact alone that explains why an obviously catastrophically inferior way of life came to dominate)

You could say hunting and gathering is producing. I'll accept that argument, but they only produced enough to survive and spent the rest of their time, as I've stated earlier, in the company of their group relaxing and socializing.


I'm going to have to butt in here.

And with this 'utopian' society of yours, what happens during winter hmm? Or maybe the herd dies out. Oops, you didn't spend time stockpiling for a harsh time. Too bad, you get wiped out.

Relaxing and socialization occurred of course. A human who spends every waking hour working is going to drop dead pretty soon. Just not as much as you think. You'd definitely spend all your daylight hours hunting.

And lets not forget occasionally fending off predators.

Really Trollgaard, go live in the wilds for a few months. Use nothing but pre-historic tools and equipment. Tell us how 'wonderful' life is like that.


Using rockets to leave earth? No thanks, I never want to leave. Earth is my home. I made of the earth.

So if we pour water on you, you'll turn to mud?

You want to cyber with grandma? Cool. If you can overlook the fact that I'm 60 years old.

Its the 'net. You could be as young as you want to be.

Mmmmm, maturity *looks lewdly at ASD*.

can't know a non-existent thing. agriculture was an absolutely unmitigrated disaster for everybody for just about 10,000 years.

How exactly was it a disaster?

recently there has been a moderate amount of mitigation to the ongoing disaster, but its still really fucking bad.. so in so far as they would try to recreate agriculture, it is only because they are ignorant of its effects. that or they are terminally stupid or evil.

If you are talking about inefficient techniques& technologies for the most part better research and study has allowed better techniques to be used (such as using less nitrates and more nitrites. Or was it more ammonia?).

Well, if they knew about agriculture they would recreate agriculture so that they could have a more comfortable and consistent lifestyle.

If they didn't know they would more than likely recreate it in a hundred thousand years or so.

only when you also have agriculture as your primary source of food. foragers have low birth rates.

(and actually, it is this fact alone that explains why an obviously catastrophically inferior way of life came to dominate)

How is an agricultural lifestyle inherently worse than a hunter gatherer lifestyle?

If you can sustain a higher level of population whilst also allowing for said population to be able to specialise it shows that it is a more effective lifestyle for the community.

What would you prefer FS: All of humanity becoming hunter gatherers or having either the hunter-gatherer or agricultural groups do their own thing on another planet?

How is an agricultural lifestyle inherently worse than a hunter gatherer lifestyle?

harder work, ridiculously shorter life expectancy, debilitating diseases, crappy diets, terrible health, mass starvation, the invention of the bossman, etc. also, it just doesn't make us happy - we actually have to invent things to emulate our forager past for fun.

we had to invent sewers and modern medicine and water treatment plants to bring our life expectancy back up to what it used to be. fuck man, we've only recently regained our original heights after the agricultural shrinking, even.

A while ago, there was some fool on the D&D forums flinging this particular shit around. Called himself Iamthepaladin. He had all this bullshit story about consulting with the king of scotland. Otherwise, his argument was almost entirely like that of the OP.

We don't need to regress in technology, we need to learn to be responsible with what we've got. Technology came fast over the last century, and we have to learn to get used to it.

And as far as my earlier comments: yes, even a north american couch potato has a pretty fair physical capability. He'd have a hard time for about a month before his body got reconditioned, but it wouldn't take long.

I haven't read through the entire thread so I don't know if anyone else has said this but if the OP isn't South Lizasauria then I'm a banana

Technology isn't a threat, it's how you use it that counts.

Let's take an example: You're a little monkey sitting on the tree, eating your good good banana. Then suddenly, the sun goes boom. What do you do? With technology, you could have ran the system or made the sun not go boom. Instead, you decided to sit on the tree eating your banana. But then, if you HAD used technology, you could have poisoned your planet and died out long before the star would have gone boom.

What's the point? Simple: Technology is both a blessing and a curse. We as a species can profit from it, but it is also our obligation that we use it in a way that doesn't harm the ecological balance.

I know what you'll say. "That dude is crazy, technology always pollutes". Does it? Just a few days ago I've been reading an article about pollution. Did you know that around 80% of total trash is package? We buy stuff wrapped up in loads of paper, plastic, steel and whatever else, the when we've used up what's inside, we simply throw it away. A huge amount of that package is completely unneeded. Even more is recyclable. Do you have any idea how much less trash we'd produce with a few very simple moves? And it wouldn't need the drop of technology.

Let's move on, to cars. Moving objects of material that currently pollute our air with various gas. Why don't we use electric cars or hybrids? Because they can't last that long? Come on, seriously, how many times a year do you drive 5000 kilometers away? Price? Yeah, those cars are expensive. Why? Because nobody buys them. Why doesn't anyone buy them? Because they're expensive. How will they become less expensive? Through advanced method of production. More technology, in essence. Besides, why don't we use Maglev trains more? Several countries in the world, among them Japan, has advanced railroad system of magnetic levitation trains that severely reduce traffic and thus unneeded pollution. More technology there. The list goes on and on with possible cleaner replacements that have little or even no impact on environment. We don't need to remove technology, we need to change the way we live. If there's a marketplace 200 meters away, there's no need to drive, walking there is perfectly ok. Who knows, perhaps you'll even meet someone and have a nice little chat.

My personal judgement is thus: technology needs to advance, but we need to take the responsibility that this technology brings us into our own hands.

Of course, I'm certain some of you will ask - why travel at all? Why produce, why research? See the monkey story above. I, for one, am a very curious person. I don't settle with "sun goes down every evening and comes up morning, god made it so". I want to know WHY. It's this WHY, ladies and gentlement, that drives us forward. It's this WHY that made us use technology in the first place. And it's this WHY that prevents us from dropping technology now. The Amish, for instance... they can live without it. I respect them, but I likewise ask of them not to bash me for using it, just as I don' bash them for not doing so. It is my responsibility, though, that their world isn't affected by mine. We've had technological races meet less developed ones before and results were disastrous - we HAVE to accept our responsibility - to ourselves, to those around us and to the planet as a whole.

My two cents

Jeez, this thread is still going.

I wonder how the tech-bashers can cope with the contradiction of claiming that they want to go back to 1507 and still write on an internet forum instead of going nomadic in the steppe of Mongolia or in the Amazonas. Oh well.

I wonder how the tech-bashers can cope with the contradiction of claiming that they want to go back to 1507 and still write on an internet forum instead of going nomadic in the steppe of Mongolia or in the Amazonas.

Undoubtedly the same way you can cope with a -9.25 Economic Left/Right score while using a good produced in the framework of a capitalist economic system.

harder work, ridiculously shorter life expectancy, debilitating diseases, crappy diets, terrible health, mass starvation, the invention of the bossman, etc.

Hunter-gatherers had all of that too. Do you actually believe that social hierarchy was an invention of settled peoples? All the above are abundantly present in wild animal populations, and would have been no different for foraging humans.

There's always a trade off. Dying of massive infection before the age of 12 because we have no antibiotics vs. dying of skin cancer because we forgot to put on our sunblock. Dying of various cancers because there was no treatment vs. having effective radiation and chemotherapy and eliminating many cancers. Being destroyed by a moderate volcanic eruption because we don't have the means to evacuate (even now there is no protection against a massive one such as occured when Thera blew or will occur when Yellowstone blows). Being unable to feed even your family adequately because the level of agricultural science and technology doesn't even allow for subsistence existence. Gee, do I want to go back to filth, disease and ignorance, to having to shear a sheep, clean the wool, card it, spin it into fiber and weave into cloth just to have on garment (I have cleaned, carded, spun and woven wool, silk, flax and cotton - it's tedious, time-consuming, hard on the hands, especially if you have arthritis, and the return is minimal - it takes a full year to create one garment from the back of the sheep to the back of the person). Do I really want to go back to milking cows, churning butter, grinding wheat etc.? Since most people will be peasants, they'll get precious little benefit from their work since it will go to their "superiors" - they'll die young - of hunger, in childbirth, of injuries and infections. They'll be uneducated, illiterate, easily cheated and oppressed - don't entertain romantic, sentimental and ignorant notions of the glories of the "simple life" it never existed and never will - with all our problems, things are better for the "common man" than they ever were 500 years ago.

In a physical and material sense, perhaps. However, in a moral sense, few could contend that the "common man", incidentally the very same that elected New Labour, is any better than he was 500 years ago.

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

Your a dreamer, mankind as a whole would never allow technology to just disappear. Besides Technology isn't the problem, humans are the problem.

Hunter-gatherers had all of that too. Do you actually believe that social hierarchy was an invention of settled peoples? All the above are abundantly present in wild animal populations, and would have been no different for foraging humans.

this is not entirely accurate, but it is an entirely seperate issue from the one at hand.

tecnology isn't going to save our assess, neither is throwing it out with the bath water.

using better sense in both how we choose it, and with we do with it, is a very big part though, of what it will take to do so.

and that means, among other things, reducing to as near as zero as we possibly can, dependence on nearly all forms and uses of combustion and on things that depend on the use of combustion.

and there are PLENTY of alternatives to the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation, and these are NOT limited to human or animal power either.

proven, reliable, NON-combustion based energy and transportation tecnologies exist now, and have done so for at least decades, and in many cases centuries or even millinea.

wind, solar, micro-hydro, human scale guideway based tranport, these, along with relatively clean, or at least clean-er, alternatives, in endless permutations and combinations, can preserve much of the comfort zone the vast majority of those who are used to such things are seem unwilling to give up voluntarily, without the wasteful extravagance that the survival of our speceis, and quite possibly life on our planet, can no longer afford.

=^^=
.../\...

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

Imagine dying because a small scratch on your finger got infected. Imagine most folks dying before they reach twenty because of hunger, illnesses that are simple to treat now, and warfare between tribes for resources.. How about five billion people starving and fighting wars over what little food is now available since modern agriculture is gone? Sound like fun?

Hunter-gatherers had all of that too.

source?

It's this WHY, ladies and gentlement, that drives us forward. It's this WHY that made us use technology in the first place.

that's silly. what why question resulted in the answer
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Acheuleanhandaxe.jpg
?

that's silly. what why question resulted in the answer
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Acheuleanhandaxe.jpg
?

Why can't I kill things more easily?

Why can't I kill things more easily?

"why can't i kill things more easily?"
"acheulean handaxe!"

nope, not following it. maybe if we changed it to 'how' - though even then, the handaxe is more of a cutting and scraping tool...

I had to choose the 3rd option, seemed the best by far. We certainly need to stop our endless pursuit of ever greater power. We like most things are flawed, and our flaws combined with more and more power will eventually lead to our destruction. Science should never used in ways that can threaten our future. However unfortunately I doubt anyone will listen. A shame really.

I had to choose the 3rd option, seemed the best by far. We certainly need to stop our endless pursuit of ever greater power. We like most things are flawed, and our flaws combined with more and more power will eventually lead to our destruction. Science should never used in ways that can threaten our future. However unfortunately I doubt anyone will listen. A shame really.Yes, but keep certain technological advances like medicene, and steam trains

You don't understand that it's all interdependent, do you? To have trains you need iron mines and coal mines. To mine effectively you need heavy equipment. To make both you need steel foundries. You need to burn a shitload of fuel to make those things happen. If you want medicine you need to build factories that can produce it. They rely on a power grid to supply them with energy. You need to go out and get the raw materials, ship it to the factory, then distribute the finished product. You can't just pick and choose technology. Each process needs other processes to support it or it doesn't work.

I picked "more technology" although what I really mean is "better technology", which wasn't an option.

"More technology" implies that technology is some kind of substance of which one possesses an amount.

In reality, even a sharp stick is technological. It's a technology for obtaining food.

However, a hypothetical machine that grows an engineered micro-organism and crafts it into food that is both healthy and tasty, without producing dangerous waste or using excessive energy is better technology.

I think the better is implied with the more. Too bad the original poster got himself banned in very short order, could've added to the poll. Things like that happen when your arguments consist of "I'm right 'cause you're a twat."