A prudent society would put technology on hold

[coberst]

A prudent society would put technology on hold

The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.

McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.

The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.

In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war.” Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.

The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.

We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology. What do you think about this serious matter?

[Anticrombie0909]

coberst

stop thinking so hard you're going to hurt yourself

[studmuffin51306]

My goodness that was hard to read. I think I got the jist of it though.

I agree that we shouldn't experiment until we have a good idea of what it will mean.

I often mess with HTML pages. WHen you accidentally mistype something it causes major effects and instability on the rest of the page. This is also very hard to correct in a page filled with hundreds of other similar tags. It would be even harder if you couldn't just fix the mistake by typing over it.

Technology could most definately cause the end of us if it isn't put under control. We also, like you said, aren't ready to accept it. I know I don't want real body parts produced by humans. I don't even want fake body parts produced by humans. I wouldn't trust it, because it was made in a lab and not in my mothers stomach. But things like stem cell research can also lead to corruption of our society. When we actually accept that this body part was made by someone else, and are perfectly fine with it, are we putting too much faith into something that hasn't been proven compltely safe? Have we begun, at that point, to allow anything to enter our bodies, anything to affect us in any way?

[T0rajir0u]

The general population and politicians generally don't know enough about scientific issues to have a say in them. They should shut up and let scientists who know what they're talking about handle it.

[studmuffin51306]

Originally Posted by T0rajir0u

The general population and politicians generally don't know enough about scientific issues to have a say in them. They should shut up and let scientists who know what they're talking about handle it.

Completely disagreed.
Have you ever heard of book smarts and street smarts?
Scientists= Book Smarts
Most everyone arguing= Street Smarts

Some people will do anything possible with knowledge no matter what the risk. That's why they have other people to tell them what is safe.

[T0rajir0u]

Other people don't know enough to have any informed opinion about what is safe. I'd rather let knowledgeable people handle decisions that require a lot of knowledge.

To be more precise, I'm not advocating having only the scientists working on a particular project have the moral say on whether they should continue with the project or not. But other scientists are the people who have the best shot at understanding the issues behind it and regulating research.

Other scientists. Definitely not the public or the politicians.

[Grandiagod]

A prudent society would not put technology on hold but develop it to the point where it can be considered reliable. Going "OMFG CRAZY SCIENCE I DON'T TRUST IT" is a dark ages mentality.

[studmuffin51306]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

A prudent society would not put technology on hold but develop it to the point where it can be considered reliable. Going "OMFG CRAZY SCIENCE I DON'T TRUST IT" is a dark ages mentality.

NONONONO!!!
It is not Dark Ages mentality, it is being cautious. It is a necessary mentality if we don't want to all be blown into smitherines.

[JasonKey]

pffft .. that posted on a web based forum, based upon a technology that is only 13 years old on hardware that is WAY beyond anything they even remotely dreamed of 20 years ago?

Oh sure, we are diminished.... go cut the electricity outside your house and tell us about it.

Hell, I am sure they flamed Alexander Fleming when he did his work on Penicillin but I know I certainly thank him.

Stem-cell research is the same deal. Growth and development is an organic process and MUST NOT be managed by or inhibited by religious/political factors. Otherwise we spiral back towards the days of book burning and regulation. Do you know what makes up a computer CPU? Does our congress, religious leaders, political leaders? Are they qualified to regulate it?

Obviously the answer is no. Buckle your belt .. change is coming .. and will never stop.