NationStates Jolt Archive

Nanotechnology is not going to be brought out on any wide scale any time soon, as far as industry grows, mostly because it could cause a completely new type of economy that nobody knows how to run yet.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=4348729&page=1

I weep for my Republic. Nanotechnology has the capacity to usher in a new industrial revolution that would dwarf the advances made in the previous one, and there are people who would rather cling to their religion. Does any one else feel just utterly deflated that this fantastic new science is being met with opposition?

It seems like every day I become more and more like H.L Mencken everyday; cynical, jaded, and utterly amused.

By manipulating matter on the scale of one billionth of a meter, or less than one-100,000th the width of a human hair, strange things happen. Some solids turn into liquids at room temperature, some opaque substances become transparent, insulators like silicon become conductors, and so on. Scientists are able to reshape matter at the molecular level with atomic force microscopes and scanning tunneling microscopes which can literally push individual atoms around.

I'd be most afraid of nanobots in my body going all malfunctiony and screwy...otherwise that's pretty awesome...

This is why Ive already begun looking into transfering to universities in Canada and England for my grad program, and looking into job oppertunites and housing markets for when Im done with school (because Id like to finish here).


I dont like the path America has been going down in relation to science especially.


We'll see how the next president handles science (meaning, we'll see if Obama gets elected or not). That will ultimitally determine where I go after college.


On a more postitive note, I think when the time comes it will be done anyway and America will deal with it. The American people were opposed to the invention and producing of the train for christ's sake.

Isn't it more effective to fix the problems we have now without creating new ones?
Technology isn't the solution to everything. That would be Windex and common sense.

Ignorant morons. No doubt those polled had next to no idea what exactly nanotechnology is, and no doubt confused it with stem cell research and the like. Anti-intellectualism and Anti-science movements are on the rise in the western world, and that is a very sad thought.

Isn't it more effective to fix the problems we have now without creating new ones?
Technology isn't the solution to everything. That would be Windex and common sense.

Cave men had problems. You think halting scientific progress is going to free up resources to make a utopia?

On a more postitive note, I think when the time comes it will be done anyway and America will deal with it. The American people were opposed to the invention and producing of the train for christ's sake..

My personal favorite example was the religious opposition to the lightning rod; because lightning was God's divine punishment, so diverting it is playing God.

That's the only consolation that I have: that the ignorant masses really don't have that much say on the march of progree, despite their repeated attempts throughout history.

It always amazes me how much American bashing goes on in this forum regardless of what is being discussed! But now back to the topic at hand.

Most people are hesitant or afraid of change in their lives whether it is technology, governments, ideals, or even how something is done, this is new technology which people may not know much about, thus they are hesitant of trying this or getting involved, how many people wanted to climb aboard planes as soon as flight was discovered?. And all the people on this thread who sneers and laughs at the people mentioned in the article better have not been scared or hesitant or opposed to anything new or different but just accepted it immediately.
The people mentioned in the article seem to be afraid especially when they heat about scientists wishing to eliminate death (considered to be the one of two certainties) and ensuring that all people become strong. Wouldn't you be scared if you heard that people wanted this especially some scientist with some financial backing or even if the government took control and decided to use it to its own advantage. (I am sure we would find the same people touting its benefits now would then be writing in hear how bad it was), while someone has written here once Obama takes over it will all be good, bs how naive to think Obama or any President will be able to change the many layers of defence and national security that may even now be working on it.

In saying that while I may not be opposed to this technology I would like to see how it goes I wouldn't want a doctor to make a mistake with my heart which will cause half of it to turn to liquid?

Expect to see movies come out of Hollywood on this issue soon similar to The Web

Isn't it more effective to fix the problems we have now without creating new ones?
Technology isn't the solution to everything. That would be Windex and common sense.

Yeah right, like the starvation and mass disease of the middle ages is really a superior situation. :rolleyes:

Yeah right, like the starvation and mass disease of the middle ages is really a superior situation. :rolleyes:

They were all starving and desiesed because it was God's will! Fixing it is playing God!

Nanotechnology is not going to be brought out on any wide scale any time soon, as far as industry grows, mostly because it could cause a completely new type of economy that nobody knows how to run yet.

If there's enough money in it, they'll do it, regardless of the difficulty.

But as for "wide scales," nanotubes are already in use in large-scale plastics and textiles production to strengthen fibers and polymers. I know that from my friends who are in Polymer and Textile Engineering.

Technology is destroying humanity. We need an anti-industrial revolution, or at least a pro-humanity one.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

From the most famous anti-industrial revolutionary:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

Cave men had problems. You think halting scientific progress is going to free up resources to make a utopia?
No. But scientific 'progress' hasn't always been sunshine and daisies.
People tend to fixate on 'miracle cures' and put a lot of hope in 'well we can overcome it with technology, no worries' sort of attitudes, while we can fix certain problems now, and should do so before they escalate.
Yeah right, like the starvation and mass disease of the middle ages is really a superior situation. :rolleyes:
Chill. Seriously. Who mentioned starvation, mass disease, or the middle ages? You did. I think something mentioned in the article is a decent explanation. It's not hard to see why so many have conflicting views of science. We've been burned too many times by pharmaceutical drugs that were found to do more harm than good, after millions had already used them.
They were all starving and desiesed because it was God's will! Fixing it is playing God!
Because people can only object to something on religious grounds. Exactly.

For the record, I will also state that I am not exactly for nuclear power either. This may lend some perspective as to my viewpoint, or simply make it easier to falsely label me as an "idiotic fundie".

Isn't it more effective to fix the problems we have now without creating new ones?
Technology isn't the solution to everything. That would be Windex and common sense.

Yeah right, like the starvation and mass disease of the middle ages is really a superior situation. :rolleyes:

But see, the reason they had problems was because of technology. Prehistoric man had a pretty good life. Hunting and gathering weren't easy, but there was little disease (that happened after agriculture) and no one starved because there just weren't that many people in a tribe, or clan, or whatever they were. I'm not advocating a return to the Stone Age, but I think the only reason people admire creating new technology as much as they do is because people (as a species) create new technology. We tend to make gods, or in this case, ideals, in our own image.

I'd be most afraid of nanobots in my body going all malfunctiony and screwy...otherwise that's pretty awesome...
What about your body itself going all malfunctiony and screwy? My body doesn't naturally produce insulin, a necessary horrmone for metabolism, so basically I'd be dead all because of one missing hormone if technology (insulin therapy) didn't intervene.

Technology is destroying humanity. We need an anti-industrial revolution, or at least a pro-humanity one.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

From the most famous anti-industrial revolutionary:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

I would just like to point out that if we weren't using coal we'd be using firewood, which also generates smog and CO2, and if we weren't generating industrial byproducts, we'd be dumping our own fieces in to our rivers and environs, to fester, pollute, and breed disease, if we didn't have antibiotics the smallest cut could kill you, and if we didn't have factory farming, large portions of our population would have to die, and since very few people wish to die, the likely result is they'd try to kill someone else. It's far better to live in a technological society where you have the choice to conduct yourself well then in a medieval society where you don't.

No. But scientific 'progress' hasn't always been sunshine and daisies.
People tend to fixate on 'miracle cures' and put a lot of hope in 'well we can overcome it with technology, no worries' sort of attitudes, while we can fix certain problems now, and should do so before they escalate.

All I can tell you is your average citizen lives far better then he ever has because of technology. With technology, we can travel longer distances then ever before at minimal cost, live long lives, be who we want to be, and live in cities unrestrained by the hateful intrigue of village life. Where do you think womens rights came from? When the village was done away with, women were no longer restrained by the gossiping and cold-shoulders of a rural social-control society and actually had freedom to make decisions and be responsible for their own lives.

Chill. Seriously. Who mentioned starvation, mass disease, or the middle ages? You did. I think something mentioned in the article is a decent explanation.

I don't know exactly what you're mentioning, but read above.

Because people can only object to something on religious grounds. Exactly.

For the record, I will also state that I am not exactly for nuclear power either. This may lend some perspective as to my viewpoint, or simply make it easier to falsely label me as an "idiotic fundie".

I am not labeling you as an "idiotic fundie," but I do believe you have attached yourself to false Hollywood dreams that are no more real then a Hollywood romance. Not that you're the only one of course. It's a common disease, and the fact that your particular strain of it is somewhat more marginal in quantity doesn't make it any worse, but I do believe you have not considered why we built up these technologies in the first place. Even if they were built for war originally, there is a considerable difference between inventing something for one purpose at one time and making it a cornerstone of your life.

The technologies we criticize most, like cars, had huge advantages that greatly improved life in many ways we now take for granted or accept as our natural right, like the right to own our own house, a right that in many places before the car was available only to a very rich upper class that could afford to take the train or horse carriage everyday, or else those who lived in rural areas, which thanks to the car and the increased prosperity the car brought suddenly became accessible.

I would just like to point out that if we weren't using coal we'd be using firewood, which also generates smog and CO2, and if we weren't generating industrial byproducts, we'd be dumping our own fieces in to our rivers and environs, to fester, pollute, and breed disease, if we didn't have antibiotics the smallest cut could kill you, and if we didn't have factory farming, large portions of our population would have to die, and since very few people wish to die, the likely result is they'd try to kill someone else. It's far better to live in a technological society where you have the choice to conduct yourself well then in a medieval society where you don't.
If we lived in a society that still used firewood, we would not be using as much.


All I can tell you is your average citizen lives far better then he ever has because of technology. With technology, we can travel longer distances then ever before at minimal cost, live long lives, be who we want to be, and live in cities unrestrained by the hateful intrigue of village life. Where do you think womens rights came from? When the village was done away with, women were no longer restrained by the gossiping and cold-shoulders of a rural social-control society and actually had freedom to make decisions and be responsible for their own lives.
This all assumes we already have a basic technological level. In other words, technology will save us...from our old technology.

The technologies we criticize most, like cars, had huge advantages that greatly improved life in many ways we now take for granted or accept as our natural right, like the right to own our own house, a right that in many places before the car was available only to a very rich upper class that could afford to take the train or horse carriage everyday, or else those who lived in rural areas, which thanks to the car and the increased prosperity the car brought suddenly became accessible.

But more often than not the technology precedes the demand for it. Take the car, for example. Before it was invented, I don't think anyone said, "Boy, I wish I had a machine that could take me places faster and farther than this horse." That's not the say the car did not have a positive impact, but the only people who see it as a fundamental necessity are those who have never lived in a society where cars did not exist.

The problem with this technology is that science will run into it head first without perfecting it and making sure it is completely safe. Just look at what happened after people started using the X-ray for various tasks...they got cancer because they were examining shoe size without knowing the downsides.

I just advise caution, and maybe a little bit of consumer rights.

All I can tell you is your average citizen lives far better then he ever has because of technology. With technology, we can travel longer distances then ever before at minimal cost, live long lives, be who we want to be, and live in cities unrestrained by the hateful intrigue of village life. Where do you think womens rights came from? When the village was done away with, women were no longer restrained by the gossiping and cold-shoulders of a rural social-control society and actually had freedom to make decisions and be responsible for their own lives.
I cannot really make any comments on this, because, like you, I did not grow up in a world bereft of anything that today we would call 'technology'.
I am not labeling you as an "idiotic fundie," but I do believe you have attached yourself to false Hollywood dreams that are no more real then a Hollywood romance. Not that you're the only one of course. It's a common disease, and the fact that your particular strain of it is somewhat more marginal in quantity doesn't make it any worse, but I do believe you have not considered why we built up these technologies in the first place. Even if they were built for war originally, there is a considerable difference between inventing something for one purpose at one time and making it a cornerstone of your life.
"False Hollywood dreams"? That technology cannot and will not solve all our problems? I think this is a realistic outlook on the world. I do not subscribe to either the "omgz Immoral robotz will taek ovr our base!" or the "Oh, don't worry about the messes we make today, technology will fix it! Weeheehee!" groups. I am not against nuclear power because it was originally used for warfare(though that is a plausible reason), but because I do not feel that the potential gains outweigh the potential costs when compared to other renewable resources that I feel should be emphasized more.
The technologies we criticize most, like cars, had huge advantages that greatly improved life in many ways we now take for granted or accept as our natural right, like the right to own our own house, a right that in many places before the car was available only to a very rich upper class that could afford to take the train or horse carriage everyday, or else those who lived in rural areas, which thanks to the car and the increased prosperity the car brought suddenly became accessible.
How so? Before cars it was because there was no need for cars. With cars, we were then able to expand and incorporate this new technology, adapt our lives and economies to it, and are now dependent on them.

reminds me of the bit when Mo from the Simpsons gets crushed by a dinosaur skeleton after an anti-science rampage, and cries "only medical science can save me now!"

or words to that effect

Oh no, super-humans, quick, run and pray....it's time people start living with science!

What about the dark side of this technology? Ever thought about that. If these nanobots can repair the human body, they can also destroy it. Imagine a nanoplague programmed to kill everyone in entire entire country. It's very feasible if these nanobots are as good as the article claims they could be.

Is that an acceptable price for technological advancement? I quite frankly am not willing to trust that this new technology will be used benignly. Not with the way that power structures are now. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."

The dangers inherent in this technology are almost unlimited. Present technology is already enough to wipe out all of human civilization in nuclear fire. And things will only get deadlier.

What about the dark side of this technology? Ever thought about that. If these nanobots can repair the human body, they can also destroy it. Imagine a nanoplague programmed to kill everyone in entire entire country. It's very feasible if these nanobots are as good as the article claims they could be.

Is that an acceptable price for technological advancement? I quite frankly am not willing to trust that this new technology will be used benignly. Not with the way that power structures are now. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."

The dangers inherent in this technology are almost unlimited. Present technology is already enough to wipe out all of human civilization in nuclear fire. And things will only get deadlier.

So a Pandora's box of robots? I agree that the destructive power is only limited by our imaginations if they are as advanced as stated, but that doesn't mean they will be misused, much like germ warfare or nuclear weapons.

Then again I'm no scientist so I have no idea what they could do with'em...

What about the dark side of this technology? Ever thought about that. If these nanobots can repair the human body, they can also destroy it. Imagine a nanoplague programmed to kill everyone in entire entire country. It's very feasible if these nanobots are as good as the article claims they could be.

Is that an acceptable price for technological advancement? I quite frankly am not willing to trust that this new technology will be used benignly. Not with the way that power structures are now. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."

The dangers inherent in this technology are almost unlimited. Present technology is already enough to wipe out all of human civilization in nuclear fire. And things will only get deadlier.

Ok, so can't you just refuse to get injected with nanorobots? Are you afraid they will take control of other people's minds?

Funny we're not all dead yet with all that evil technology. Hey...what if...what if technology saved more lives than it killed? Boy, would that be a wonderful world...

What about the dark side of this technology? Ever thought about that. If these nanobots can repair the human body, they can also destroy it. Imagine a nanoplague programmed to kill everyone in entire entire country. It's very feasible if these nanobots are as good as the article claims they could be.
Nanoplague?

Lame, also sci-fi-tabulous.

Bullets with Very Angry Nanobots that attack one's brain or spinal cord, or heart, that's what'll be designed. Assassination weapons are what nanobots are for in the more shady end of science.
Is that an acceptable price for technological advancement? I quite frankly am not willing to trust that this new technology will be used benignly. Not with the way that power structures are now.
Ah well. That's how things are, though.
The dangers inherent in this technology are almost unlimited. Present technology is already enough to wipe out all of human civilization in nuclear fire. And things will only get deadlier.
I don't really see how you can get deadlier than a nuke, to be honest.

I can guarantee you that if you had taken a poll in 19th century about the industrial revolution and replacement of workers by machines, you would've seen similar kind of opposition. There were many of the same fears of economic disruption and dehumanization that are seen in nanotechnology today. A lot of people fear what they don't understand, and it's manifested in this opposition.

But what ended up happening? Technology progressed apace and we now accept it as routinely as any other aspect of modern life. The same will happen with nanotechnology and what follows it.

Click Stand;13487316']So a Pandora's box of robots? I agree that the destructive power is only limited by our imaginations if they are as advanced as stated, but that doesn't mean they will be misused, much like germ warfare or nuclear weapons.

Then again I'm no scientist so I have no idea what they could do with'em...

The point is that I do not trust them to use the technology benevolently. Several times the US foreign policy establishment advocated the complete thermonuclear annihilation of the USSR, and were only dissuaded because President Eisenhower refused to slaughter one hundred million innocent people to ensure the US's dominance.

If the fate of 100 million people are balanced on the compassion of one individual, then forgive me if I do not trust him with that much power.

Ok, so can't you just refuse to get injected with nanorobots? Are you afraid they will take control of other people's minds?

Funny we're not all dead yet with all that evil technology. Hey...what if...what if technology saved more lives than it killed? Boy, would that be a wonderful world...

Refusing to get injected will not stop the weaponization of nanotechnology. In practice, they are no different in application then our current biological weaponry. You spread aerosol clouds of the pathogen over target areas. But these would likely be deadlier by several orders of magnitude.

Like I said before, I do not trust that such power will be used benevolently.

Nanoplague?

Lame, also sci-fi-tabulous.

Bullets with Very Angry Nanobots that attack one's brain or spinal cord, or heart, that's what'll be designed. Assassination weapons are what nanobots are for in the more shady end of science.

If they can be engineered to do the fabulous things that the article talked about, then they can also be engineered to kill on a mass scale, just like a biological weapon but deadlier.

I don't really see how you can get deadlier than a nuke, to be honest.

The same reason why the neutron bomb was so much more insidious than conventional nuclear weapons. Weapons that kill people but leave land and capital intact and still functional make war all the more profitable for the warmaker.

Bugger that. Much cheaper to just scrape all of the scabs out of hospitals, stick it in a blender and sprinkle lightly over an opposing city.

Conventional nukes can be airburst to cause a minimal fallout effect...

But is it as cost effective? I'm not an expert, but I'd expect that if nanotechnology becomes cheap enough to make these medical break throughs practical, it will be cheap enough to make effective weapons.

Airbursted nukes may minimize fall out, but they will still level buildings and generally smash anything below them. Nanotech weapons and even refined neutron bombs could depopulate entire cities leaving all the valuable property intact.

If they can be engineered to do the fabulous things that the article talked about, then they can also be engineered to kill on a mass scale, just like a biological weapon but deadlier.
Bugger that. Much cheaper to just scrape all of the scabs out of hospitals, stick it in a blender and sprinkle lightly over an opposing city.
The same reason why the neutron bomb was so much more insidious than conventional nuclear weapons. Weapons that kill people but leave land and capital intact and still functional make war all the more profitable for the warmaker.
Conventional nukes can be airburst to cause a minimal fallout effect...

But is it as cost effective? I'm not an expert, but I'd expect that if nanotechnology becomes cheap enough to make these medical break throughs practical, it will be cheap enough to make effective weapons.

Oh, yeah, it could. So can virtually every other applied field in existence.

Oh, yeah, it could. So can virtually every other applied field in existence.

Even though I don't necessarily agree nanotechnology or technology in general is the solution to all our problems I agree with this. Anything that people want to abuse can and will be abused.

I can guarantee you that if you had taken a poll in 19th century about the industrial revolution and replacement of workers by machines, you would've seen similar kind of opposition. There were many of the same fears of economic disruption and dehumanization that are seen in nanotechnology today. A lot of people fear what they don't understand, and it's manifested in this opposition.

But what ended up happening? Technology progressed apace and we now accept it as routinely as any other aspect of modern life. The same will happen with nanotechnology and what follows it.

Combine nanotechnology, at least the self replicating kind, with cheap AI and uploads there may be some cause for worry. Robin Hanson's "if uploads come first" imagines an economy that appears quite marxist with a few uploads with tremendous wealth and the vast majority getting by at subsistence wages.

But don't you people think it will probably have more good uses then bad ones?

But don't you people think it will probably have more good uses then bad ones?
It could quite possibly make doing anything pointless, as you get yourself some self-replicating nanobots and programme in breakfast, lunch and tea instead of, say, going to work.

Could well cause huge amounts of ecological damage and a world economic crash. Not a sound idea.

Combine nanotechnology, at least the self replicating kind, with cheap AI and uploads there may be some cause for worry. Robin Hanson's "if uploads come first" imagines an economy that appears quite marxist with a few uploads with tremendous wealth and the vast majority getting by at subsistence wages.

Yes, it would be very concerning. Generally, you'd need the nanotechnology first, then AI, and then uploads...any other path would be pretty dangerous.

But what ended up happening?

Exactly that?

That is not the whole story, of course... but it's part of it.

If we lived in a society that still used firewood, we would not be using as much.

Maybe, but it would so much less efficient it wouldn't matter if we did - it would still pollute more and place a greater strain on the environment to cut down every tree in every forest so 7 billion people have firewood. You can't be frugal if you're broke. The reality is that centralized heating and power is good for the environment because it allows control and scale, two things you can never have with firewood. That's not to say there aren't better methods then we are currently using that would prevent harm in a yet superior fashion, such as wind and nuclear, but even our current methods leave us in better shape then the stubbed over forests that would be left by a firewood society.

This all assumes we already have a basic technological level. In other words, technology will save us...from our old technology.

No, it's assuming people need to eat. A lack of technology will not save you from an empty stomach or a lack of shelter, nor a lack of abillity to treat cuts and wounds, or an inabillity to properly take care of infants so they don't die two weeks later, like they usually do in Africa. These were things our ancestors dealt with - they were not things caused by technology.

They also dealt with poop, also not caused by technology, which has a terrible tendency to cause disease when not properly disposed of. And they dealt with subjugation, slavery, things that come about from the lack of technology. If you have a machine that can do it, you will generally avoid keeping a slave for the simple and basic reasons that it's less of a security risk, always does what it's told the first time, is generally more efficient, and doesn't have to be fed, clothed, or housed, and most importantly, is not a live breathing human being. Likewise, people are more free when they are not part of a tribe, something they have to be part of without technology.

But more often than not the technology precedes the demand for it. Take the car, for example. Before it was invented, I don't think anyone said, "Boy, I wish I had a machine that could take me places faster and farther than this horse." That's not the say the car did not have a positive impact, but the only people who see it as a fundamental necessity are those who have never lived in a society where cars did not exist.

Nope. The car did not precede the demand for it. There were more then a few people who wanted a horseless carriage for quite a long time. It was not, however, because it was faster then a horse. Far from it, the original horseless carriages were actually slower then horses in full gallop. It was quite an achievement to break 25 MPH. But the advantage in a car you see is that you don't have to stable it. It's a machine, it needs minimal maintenance and fuel only. You don't have to stable it, you don't have to give it rest, you don't have to treat it like an animal to keep it alive. And because you don't have to stable it, most people can own one, something which was never true about horses. It required so much labor and land to keep horses, that you would have to subjugate several citizens to provide for your own right to have one. There's a reason Jesus came in to Jerusalem riding a donkey, because most Jews could not afford a horse, and Jesus was of the common man.

BTW: I actually have lived in a society without automobiles. It's called college, and not having a car is quite possibly the least enjoyable part of it.

Bann-ed: The false Hollywood dream I'm speaking about that you appear to be demonstrating right now is this idea of a utopic former state that humanity came out of. There was no utopia, never will be, never has been. If you don't deal with technology, you deal with poop, disease, infection, deforestation, and eventually killing off all the animals, wildlife, and herbs that you hunt and gather. Not that you might still not deal with some of these, but with technology, you at least have a choice. Like it or not, the numbers just don't add up.

But don't you people think it will probably have more good uses then bad ones?

Possible bad uses:

+Warfare - we do it already.
+Crime - we do it already.
+Confusion - that we do to ourselves.

Possible good uses:

+Extreme Heat Resistant - new
+Extreme Tensile Strength - new
+Repairing Damaged Tissues - improved
+Possibly enhancing human abillity - much needed.

It could quite possibly make doing anything pointless, as you get yourself some self-replicating nanobots and programme in breakfast, lunch and tea instead of, say, going to work.

Could well cause huge amounts of ecological damage and a world economic crash. Not a sound idea.

By definition, you can't have a world economic crash if you're generating everything you need.

Bann-ed: The false Hollywood dream I'm speaking about that you appear to be demonstrating right now is this idea of a utopic former state that humanity came out of. There was no utopia, never will be, never has been. If you don't deal with technology, you deal with poop, disease, infection, deforestation, and eventually killing off all the animals, wildlife, and herbs that you hunt and gather. Not that you might still not deal with some of these, but with technology, you at least have a choice. Like it or not, the numbers just don't add up.

Yes, appear to be. Being as you seem to have just assumed that I believe that. If we don't deal with technology we deal with "poop, disease, infection, deforestation, and eventually killing off all the animals, wildlife, and herbs that you hunt and gather" which for the most part is happening today despite technology. And there is a very, very, very, simple way to avoid all that mess. Or I should say there was a way. Limiting the population. The larger the population the more difficult it is to provide, sustain, and protect said population without destroying and degrading everything around it, until there is nothing left with which to support the population. I suppose that is another thread though.

Maybe, but it would so much less efficient it wouldn't matter if we did - it would still pollute more and place a greater strain on the environment to cut down every tree in every forest so 7 billion people have firewood. You can't be frugal if you're broke. The reality is that centralized heating and power is good for the environment because it allows control and scale, two things you can never have with firewood. That's not to say there aren't better methods then we are currently using that would prevent harm in a yet superior fashion, such as wind and nuclear, but even our current methods leave us in better shape then the stubbed over forests that would be left by a firewood society.
What I meant was that if we compare real societies through history that used wood compared to those that used coal, the firewooders did not have the other technological advances that you need coal to fuel.



No, it's assuming people need to eat. A lack of technology will not save you from an empty stomach or a lack of shelter, nor a lack of abillity to treat cuts and wounds, or an inabillity to properly take care of infants so they don't die two weeks later, like they usually do in Africa. These were things our ancestors dealt with - they were not things caused by technology.
I'm glad you brought up Africa. It's true, conditions in Africa are closer to the 19th century than to the 21st. However, that is because the Africans live in a more technological world. If Somalians were still hunter-gatherers in Neolithic times, they would be much better off than they are now.
Also, consider how the geopolitical situation in Africa got the way it did. European colonization. And why were the Europeans ables to colonize? Superior technology.
They also dealt with poop, also not caused by technology, which has a terrible tendency to cause disease when not properly disposed of. And they dealt with subjugation, slavery, things that come about from the lack of technology. If you have a machine that can do it, you will generally avoid keeping a slave for the simple and basic reasons that it's less of a security risk, always does what it's told the first time, is generally more efficient, and doesn't have to be fed, clothed, or housed, and most importantly, is not a live breathing human being. Likewise, people are more free when they are not part of a tribe, something they have to be part of without technology.
Slavery was the result of technology, as was poor sanitation. If you are a prehistoric nomad, slavery makes no sense. You have to exert energy getting slaves, then keeping them, and for what? So they can go hunt for you? To make sure they don't run away you would have to keep an eye on them, and then you may as well hunt yourself. Same with sanitation. Disposing of waste is only an issue if many people live in a confined place, anyone who has had a pet hamster knows this. I don't know how hamsters live in the wild, but I'm pretty sure they don't need someone to put fresh shavings in their habitat every week.
Nope. The car did not precede the demand for it. There were more then a few people who wanted a horseless carriage for quite a long time. It was not, however, because it was faster then a horse. Far from it, the original horseless carriages were actually slower then horses in full gallop. It was quite an achievement to break 25 MPH. But the advantage in a car you see is that you don't have to stable it. It's a machine, it needs minimal maintenance and fuel only. You don't have to stable it, you don't have to give it rest, you don't have to treat it like an animal to keep it alive. And because you don't have to stable it, most people can own one, something which was never true about horses. It required so much labor and land to keep horses, that you would have to subjugate several citizens to provide for your own right to have one. There's a reason Jesus came in to Jerusalem riding a donkey, because most Jews could not afford a horse, and Jesus was of the common man.
I admit I don't know that much about automotive history; it was just the first thing I could think of. However, I have never heard of anyone in 1700 demanding a horseless carriage. Perhaps later on people did, but I imagine it was shortly before the internal combustion engine was invented.
So perhaps it is a mistake to say that inventions create their own demand. But the demand is caused by technology: a horseless carriage wouldn't be necessary if you didn't need to go far. A light bulb would be useless if you didn't have a) a need to light large spaces for long periods of time or b) a way of producing electricity.

What I meant was that if we compare real societies through history that used wood compared to those that used coal, the firewooders did not have the other technological advances that you need coal to fuel.

Yes, but eventually heating issues would've forced enough firewood to be used to equal the toll on environment placed by coal, and then surpass with greater demand and no hope for improvement in sight. May I remind you that none of those "real societies" through history had 7 billion people. And don't even mention population limiting, because if you have no contraception (a recent technology), it's a little hard to do.

I'm glad you brought up Africa. It's true, conditions in Africa are closer to the 19th century than to the 21st. However, that is because the Africans live in a more technological world. If Somalians were still hunter-gatherers in Neolithic times, they would be much better off than they are now.

Why? The only thing I can think of that technology might have made worse is the slave trade, and even that would have gone on to a degree and, unlike with technology, never reached a conclusion. It would've ceased to be a bright burning flame for two hundred years and become a slower, painful simmer for five thousand.

Also, consider how the geopolitical situation in Africa got the way it did. European colonization. And why were the Europeans ables to colonize? Superior technology.

The Europeans didn't bring the tsetse fly, or malaria, or an ineffective UNTECHNOLOGICAL way of feeding your people that makes you dependent on the outside world for food. Not that the Europeans were wonderful people, but Africa would be a messed up place with or without them.

Slavery was the result of technology, as was poor sanitation. If you are a prehistoric nomad, slavery makes no sense.

Many native american tribes, including nomadic ones, kept slaves, especially around Washington State. Actually, it made more sense because you were heavilly armed anyways and travelling somewhere new every month so if a slave escaped they'd likely have nowhere to go. As for sanitation, you have to live somewhere and in a nomadic society you have to live very nearby each other for mutual protection, thus creating a poor sanitation problem. It only takes one day to need to poop, and most societies before technology didn't have the scientific know how to see why you shouldn't do it indoors or nearby on a cold winter morning.

I admit I don't know that much about automotive history; it was just the first thing I could think of. However, I have never heard of anyone in 1700 demanding a horseless carriage.

Many experiments were done, especially in America and Britain, in trying to make a horseless carriage with steam. And it's common sense that many land owners wanted to get rid of their horses. As for "not needing to go far," rubbish. People have always needed to travel long distances, and will always need to travel long distances. Before cars, they had horses, before horses, they had runners, packdogs, and feet. There are always reasons -defence, lack of space, interest, lack of a particular resource- why people will need to travel a ways. Right now in Atlanta, we're running out of water. Eventually the same thing would happen to a tribal village. I mean, just because you need less water, doesn't mean you're going to HAVE that water, and you'll have such an inferior abillity to get to water that you'll constantly need to relocate every time something goes wrong. You work on this false assumption that if we all just don't spend we'll have something, but that something has to be gotten, and that's something you fail to see. You can't control the world any more then I can control the weather.

Bann-ed: I really don't see how our environmental problems will neccesarilly cause what you described. More likely they'll just cause a bunch of big storms, higher sea levels, unpleasant summers and winters, and greater agricultural demand to be satisfied by ever improved methods. And actually yes, we are making inroads environmentally. Many lands have been protected, pollution levels are well below what they were 50 years ago, and most of that has to do with improved technology which allows us to produce more at a lower, or perhaps even non-existent, toll to the environment.

Oh, and by the way, you can't limit population growth without contraception.

It would have been nice if the article had specified what groups have a problem with it and why, exactly, it would be considered morally unacceptable. I don't see why it would be, and I'm very religious.

Bann-ed: I really don't see how our environmental problems will neccesarilly cause what you described. More likely they'll just cause a bunch of big storms and greater agricultural demand to be satisfied by ever improved methods. And actually yes, we are making inroads towards environmental progress. Many lands have been protected, pollution levels are well below what they were 50 years ago, and most of that has to do with improved technology which allows us to produce more at a lower, or perhaps even non-existent toll to the environment.
Much of the world lives in those conditions. Conditions may I add, that I quoted from you and did not invent myself. With constant population growth, all else is irrelevant. We keep reaching past(or pushing) the carrying capacity and eventually, possibly soon, we will reach it. Technology is helping us get there faster, but it will not prevent the Earth's natural systems from overloading and pretty much causing Middle Ages conditions across the globe.
Oh, and by the way, you can't limit population growth without contraception.
That is a laughable statement. I didn't laugh though.

Much of the world lives in those conditions. Conditions may I add, that I quoted from you and did not invent myself. With constant population growth, all else is irrelevant. We keep reaching past(or pushing) the carrying capacity and eventually, possibly soon, we will reach it. Technology is helping us get there faster, but it will not prevent the Earth's natural systems from overloading and pretty much causing Middle Ages conditions across the globe.

The percentage of the world that lives in those conditions is in decline, especially in India and China, which are a huge swath of the world's population. As for carrying capacity, what carrying capacity? If I start growing things hydroponically (as some fruits and vegetables are already grown) without any soil whatsoever in the elevator shafts of skyscrapers, how am I exerting a toll on the environment, especially if I use waste products from some industrial processes to make these?

That is a laughable statement. I didn't laugh though.

You are only insulting it because you have no way of countering it. People are horney bastards, and without the pill, the condom, and all the other wonderful technological ways of limiting population growth, are a necessity for the untechnological world you have proposed.

And don't even mention population limiting, because if you have no contraception (a recent technology), it's a little hard to do.

not really, infanticide could work.

Why? The only thing I can think of that technology might have made worse is the slave trade, and even that would have gone on to a degree and, unlike with technology, never reached a conclusion. It would've ceased to be a bright burning flame for two hundred years and become a slower, painful simmer for five thousand.

because they would enjoy the decent quality of living that most hunter-gatherers had. (assuming there were less somalians of course, you can't sustain that many people on such a small surface)

Yes, but eventually heating issues would've forced enough firewood to be used to equal the toll on environment placed by coal, and then surpass with greater demand and no hope for improvement in sight. May I remind you that none of those "real societies" through history had 7 billion people. And don't even mention population limiting, because if you have no contraception (a recent technology), it's a little hard to do.
Okay, I think I see where we're disagreeing. I don't technology is bad now. I have high hopes for modern technology, and think it will help many of our problems. However, many of these problems are the result of older technologies.
Clearly, technological progress, so far, seems to have brought more good than harm, otherwise we would have stopped a long time ago (or died). I just don't think that technology is necessary to save us from a life similar to that of apes.


The Europeans didn't bring the tsetse fly, or malaria, or an ineffective UNTECHNOLOGICAL way of feeding your people that makes you dependent on the outside world for food. Not that the Europeans were wonderful people, but Africa would be a messed up place with or without them.
Malaria wasn't a huge problem anyway; that's why many Africans have sickle cells.
Again, I don't have this idea of "the noble savage," that Man was a content and peaceful animal until the evils of civilization came down upon him. And humans have always had some level of basic technology. We need it, being soft and crushable. But to say that technological progress is good because it is technological progress? I don't agree.



Many native american tribes, including nomadic ones, kept slaves, especially around Washington State. Actually, it made more sense because you were heavilly armed anyways and travelling somewhere new every month so if a slave escaped they'd likely have nowhere to go. As for sanitation, you have to live somewhere and in a nomadic society you have to live very nearby each other for mutual protection, thus creating a poor sanitation problem. It only takes one day to need to poop, and most societies before technology didn't have the scientific know how to see why you shouldn't do it indoors or nearby on a cold winter morning.
Not all Native Americans were nomadic. I don't know a whole lot about those in Washington State, but from what I still remember of 5th grade history, they were stationary. (I could be wrong though. Any source would be useful.)
As for sanitation: if you are nomadic, there are no indoors, so you don't have to worry about, err, messying them.

The percentage of the world that lives in those conditions is in decline, especially in India and China, which are a huge swath of the world's population. As for carrying capacity, what carrying capacity? If I start growing things hydroponically (as some fruits and vegetables are already grown) without any soil whatsoever in the elevator shafts of skyscrapers, how am I exerting a toll on the environment, especially if I use waste products from some industrial processes to make these?
Yes, the percentage is in decline, but by no means has technology been infused everywhere. What carrying capacity? Even if we live in an absolutely utopian world where the only problem is population growth...we would still eventually run out of space. There is a carrying capacity no matter how optimistically you choose to look at the situation. At any rate I have seen little use of this supposedly perfect farming process. Even if the technology is there, it's useless if people are unable to implement it.
You are only insulting it because you have no way of countering it. People are horney bastards, and without the pill, the condom, and all the other wonderful technological ways of limiting population growth, are a necessity for the untechnological world you have proposed.
No, I was 'insulting' it because it was so absurd and incorrect.
I would like you to explain why the Earth's population was relatively low and stable until the advent of 'technology' and processes such as farming, the "Agricultural Revolution" as it is called.
I would also like you to explain how the native population on the North American continent(I am unsure about the south american one), was very small. Especially when compared to the population of Europe.. Is it because all the Natives were in control of technology? Did the population boom with the Agricultural Revolution start because people lost technology?

Yes, the percentage is in decline, but by no means has technology been infused everywhere. What carrying capacity? Even if we live in an absolutely utopian world where the only problem is population growth...we would still eventually run out of space. There is a carrying capacity no matter how optimistically you choose to look at the situation. At any rate I have seen little use of this supposedly perfect farming process. Even if the technology is there, it's useless if people are unable to implement it.

We won't run out of space if we build in to the sky. And as for the "supposedly perfect farming process," you can already go to the supermarket and buy hydroponic vegetables, I remember from a previous thread that LG (I think it was LG) said that he buys hydroponic tomatoes as they apparently of better quality. It's expensive now, but the cost will drop. Anyways, search for my "Hydroponic Farming" thread if you're interested.

No, I was 'insulting' it because it was so absurd and incorrect.
I would like you to explain why the Earth's population was relatively low and stable until the advent of 'technology' and processes such as farming, the "Agricultural Revolution" as it is called.
I would also like you to explain how the native population on the North American continent(I am unsure about the south american one), was very small. Especially when compared to the population of Europe.. Is it because all the Natives were in control of technology? Did the population boom with the Agricultural Revolution start because people lost technology?

The population was still growing, even before the AR, and with contraception, if you've noticed, the population curve is now tilting inward. That's right, condoms DO work!

Not all Native Americans were nomadic. I don't know a whole lot about those in Washington State, but from what I still remember of 5th grade history, they were stationary. (I could be wrong though. Any source would be useful.)
As for sanitation: if you are nomadic, there are no indoors, so you don't have to worry about, err, messying them.

The ones east of the mountains were nomadic, west of the mountains they were largely not except for trading tribes like the Snoqualmie, who also kept slaves.

And by the way, you do have indoors, just temporary ones, if you are nomadic -everyone needs shelter- and it only takes one cold winter night to "messy" them.

Isidoor: The trouble with infanticide or any other kind of negative population control is that it involves killing people, which always makes it politically untenable and eventually causes it's own collapse. Even in the most successful cases, you cannot have a negative population system (like the ones the Mayans and Aztecs had) for more then a few hundred years before finally it catches up to you and your way of life is destroyed. The only reason our own institution of abortion works is because it is entirely by choice, and thus can claim to protect a human right, but even that situation isn't 100% tenable, as there are more then enough pro-life advocates out there to potentially shut it down one of these days.

And no, the hunter gatherers would not always remain small in number. It would take longer for them to multiply, but they'd have no response to their own multiplying, unlike an agriculturual society, which CAN change it's ways.

We won't run out of space if we build in to the sky. And as for the "supposedly perfect farming process," you can already go to the supermarket and buy hydroponic vegetables, I remember from a previous thread that LG (I think it was LG) said that he buys hydroponic tomatoes as they apparently of better quality. It's expensive now, but the cost will drop. Anyways, search for my "Hydroponic Farming" thread if you're interested.

The population was still growing, even before the AR, and with contraception, if you've noticed, the population curve is now tilting inward. That's right, condoms DO work!

I am so very sorry. I...you're right. What can I say to knock down this argument? Not much really. So long as we build straight up in the air, raise vegetables in elevator shafts, slip condoms into junk mail so everyone in MDCs get some, and eliminate all of the world's other problems with blessed technology, we are saved. Saved.

I am so very sorry. I...you're right. What can I say to knock down this argument? Not much really. So long as we build straight up in the air, raise vegetables in elevator shafts, slip condoms into junk mail so everyone in MDCs get some, and eliminate all of the world's other problems with blessed technology, we are saved. Saved.

You learn so fast. :D