Will rapidly advancing technology make us primitive in the long run?

[Aa_Doodaa]

So, as I sat, looking through the CT threads, eating honey roasted peanuts, I began to think: Will technology designed for the purpose of making typical events easier screw us over in the long run?

I'm rather tired and have to leave for school in about a half hour, so i don't have time for a lengthy explanation of what i'm trying to say here... So i'll try to get in as much as time and consciousness permit.

One of the sole purposes of technology is to make tasks easier. We have programmed robots building our cars, cleaning our houses, and bottling our Pepsi. What if, one day in the future, human beings had almost no responsibilities because it was all done by machinery, and we lost the knowledge of how to do things that had been formerly done by technology?

What if simple tasks like eating had been taken care of by robots in this future, and we had forgotten how to; then the machinery used to do it was no more? What would become of the world then?

I think that the natural craving of a human being for tasks to be easier or eliminated will inevitably come to this.

PS: As i said, i was tired when i posted this... so if it makes absolutely no sense, please blame sleep deprivation and not me.

[krazykhalid]

i get what your trying to say, i dont think technology will get to the point were people are going to be so lazy they need a machine to feed them, only in extreme circumstances this is probably needed, like some osrt of physical handicap...

I think the odds of this happening is slim to none in most areas, because for someone someone to build more robots and manage them, someone is going to need to know how it works because if a robot breaks down, who will be there for fix it, robots are just machines that are told what to do, they can't think for themselves and do many of the complicated things humands can do... like knowing how much a person needs to eat, or when they are hungry, the person themselves has to know that, and must learn it at somepoint in their lives on how to survive...

We aren't going to be that dependant on technology any time soon... we are probably hundreds of years away from even thinking that is a possibility of happening.

[Reach]

Well, given society now pushes to keep everyone alive and helps those that are sickly and born with defects, our course of evolution is a little different than in the past. However, with regards to what you are getting at...

You also have to remember not everything is easier than before. Physical tasks have become significantly easier; however, mental tasks have become increasingly difficult ( at least within certain portions of the population). Getting into high level academic fields is more competitive than ever before. Even if we do become physically dependant on machines, which is a huge possibility, I don't see how that is going to happen mentally (at least not yet, since cyborg humans don't seem like a possibility for a while ;p).

then the machinery used to do it was no more? What would become of the world then?

You're 'what if'ing. What if we blow ourselves up tomorrow? The answer is we're going to go extinct. The same applies here; however, there is no reason to believe this is going to happen. Why would the machines cease to exist? There's no reason for it and also no need to what if it.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by The SImpsons

Good Afternoon, the wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea but in space or on top of a really tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots and as you leave here today, your duty is clear. To build and maintain those robots. Thank You.

If you'd really like to se a case study in this concept, read the book 'Player Piano' by the late Kurt Vonnegut.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Try to keep this thread more realistic. Try not to take the idea of technology and simply have the thoughts of bad robots in I-Robot or any of these insane ideas of robots taking over humans (unless of course people mention that robots could come to a level of intelligence where they have a mind of their own to kill others, are programmed to kill others, or are very defective to the point that they might harm the people). I believe that technology is great. So what if we are lazy. Do you honestly believe that human beings were meant to work themselves to death? If you ever had strange feelings of being reincarnated or that you might come back to life after you die (just more possibilities), do you honestly want to repeat what you have done in past lives if you had them? If a caveman comes to our generation and sees how much better (hopefully they view the future as better) the world has become, would he really go back to smacking his neighbor with a club when he could have some futuristic lazer tag game with jet packs? I mean if the caveman still wanted to, there would still be clubs to smack his neighbors with. If all we do is sit there and do absolutely nothing then we have succeeded quite a bit in technology. People can't get too lazy with technology because they have to keep on trying to invent new technology, repair old technology, and even improve old technology (that is unless they get to the point where the need for a human being to repair robots doesn't exist because other robots would repair these robots). Also, in my opinion, if humans can't find a way to live for ever using technology, then they would have failed (strictly an opinion).

Edit: The things I would like to see the most from the future are new types of games (any type of games), new sports, new transportation (sexy hovercrafts and others), brainchips to not have the need to learn, maybe a cyborg human with all the coolest features (including being able to eventually live for ever), and new breakthroughs in science to help the environment, medical fields, and to make products easier and cheaper to make.

[Ground_Breaker]

Actually, as I was reading through this thread, I did think of a scene from "I, Robot" that does seem to give credit to the idea that technology makes us more primitive, in a manner of speaking.

The scene I'm thinking of happens right before Detective Spooner tells the full story about the accident that made him prejudiced against the robots. Dr. Calvin (the woman who accompanies Spooner throughout most of the movie, for those who haven't seen it) walks over to some type of music player and tries to get it to play by giving it voice commands. The confused look she has on her face when the device doesn't turn on is what made me think of primitive (in the sense that we're using it here).

I imagine it would be like if I lived in the year 2381, where showers turn themselves on when you step inside them, and there was some sort of large electromagnetic pulse (hypothetically speaking, I'm not talking realistically) that disabled all the computer and electrical systems in my house, I would most likely step into the shower and be confused. All my life, I've known that when I walk into the shower, it turns on, and when I walk out, it turns itself back off.

The difference now is that there isn't a machine doing the action for me, and since I've never known that if a machine doesn't work, I have to do it my damn self, I end up not taking a shower and I smell bad the whole day, not to mention I have bed hair.

So, I think the answer is yes, technology has the potential to make us more primitive if it advances far enough, in the sense that we won't know how to take care of ourselves if something happens to that technology.

[devonin]

You're defining primitive as "Lacking advanced technology" and then saying "If something happens to remove our access to advanced technology, we become primitive"

Well yes...if you define being advanced as having lots of technology, if you remove the technology we become less advanced.

The population at large today uses -tons- of pieces of technology that we have no true idea about the inner workings of, certainly not enough to construct one from scratch. How many people reading this actually fully comprehends the technology the computer and internet are using right now?

The only way to really answer this question is for each person to provide a very specific and exact meaning of the word 'primitive' before answering.

[Aa_Doodaa]

Maybe "primitive" was the wrong word for me to use here. If there is a word that fits this definition, please tell me. The word I am looking for has the definition of a person who is practically helpless and confused, not knowing what to do without a certain something, and basically hopeless.

As I read back to what I had written, I realize that I was assuming that future technology would turn us all into, for lack of a better word, vegetables. People who don't think, move, act, or LIVE for themselves, and depend on other people or things to maintain their life, and when that person or thing is no more, they are unable to maintain their life. However, if everyone were like this, then the human race would be pointless and have no reason for being in existence, and probably become extinct by it's own fault. Now that I really think about it, and am fully awake, I see that the probabilities of this happening are "slim to none," as was already said by krazykhalid.

Somewhat off topic, but in a sort of reply to Master_of_the_Faster's post: I would want to see thought-controlled internet, such as something installed in the human brain that allows internet access and web surfing controlled by the person's thoughts. It'd be the perfect escape from school.

[Aa_Doodaa]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

Try to keep this thread more realistic. Try not to take the idea of technology and simply have the thoughts of bad robots in I-Robot or any of these insane ideas of robots taking over humans (unless of course people mention that robots could come to a level of intelligence where they have a mind of their own to kill others, are programmed to kill others, or are very defective to the point that they might harm the people).

I wasn't referring to anything of that sort at all, almost the opposite. What I meant were machines that worked FOR us, and only had a mind for doing one simple task, but brought us to our knees in our own ignorance to what we would be doing to ourselves.

[Aa_Doodaa]

Originally Posted by Reach

You're 'what if'ing. What if we blow ourselves up tomorrow? The answer is we're going to go extinct. The same applies here; however, there is no reason to believe this is going to happen. Why would the machines cease to exist? There's no reason for it and also no need to what if it.

Yeah, sorry. I know "what if"ing isn't very good for CT, but meh. Love your avatar btw lol, hilarious for some reason.

[Ground_Breaker]

Originally Posted by devonin

You're defining primitive as "Lacking advanced technology" and then saying "If something happens to remove our access to advanced technology, we become primitive"

I'm defining being primitive as being unable to function in a situation where the technology that is required to do something for someone is absent. I believe that's the definition that Aa_Doodaa was talking about when he started this thread:

Originally Posted by Aa_Doodaa

People who don't think, move, act, or LIVE for themselves, and depend on other people or things to maintain their life, and when that person or thing is no more, they are unable to maintain their life.

In my hypothetical scenario, I assumed that any normal situation of life (in this case, getting into the shower) would constitute the automatic action of a piece of technology (in this case, some sort of mechanism that turns on the water).

If technology was to advance to the point that we no longer have to use our hands to turn on the water when we get into the shower, then we would be helpless without that technology if we never knew any better. Assuming it's the year 2381, where any normal situation of life constitutes the automatic action of a piece of technology, the absence of (or in this case, the destruction of) that technology would cause confusion and the inability to interpret the situation. Hence, one would be unable to function normally and would thus be primitive, by my definition.

[devonin]

I'm defining being primitive as being unable to function in a situation where the technology that is required to do something for someone is absent. I believe that's the definition that Aa_Doodaa was talking about when he started this thread:

If you have a 2 hour drive to work every day and your car breaks down, you are unable to function in the situation of "getting to work on time" So does that mean we're already there?

[Ground_Breaker]

Originally Posted by devonin

If you have a 2 hour drive to work every day and your car breaks down, you are unable to function in the situation of "getting to work on time" So does that mean we're already there?

In a sense, yes.

Your situation involves a piece of technology that does something for us: the automobile. Of course, we have control over the automobile, but I never said we didn't ultimately somehow have control over the machine that turns on the water for us. An EMP burst is a measure of control. If I wanted to disable your brand new Shower Activator Plus 3000 with an EMP burst (again, hypothetical, 2381, etc.) I would simply detonate the EMP and you would go showerless for the day.

Think about it. If my car broke down during my excessively long daily trip to work, I would be unable to function normally. I would either have to hitch a ride or walk there, depending on other circumstances you did not mention in your scenario.

I depend on my automobile to function properly when I need it to. If it doesn't, then I have to deal with the situation accordingly.

Now, if every single car in the world broke down, then we all would be unable to function in the situation of "getting to work on time", as you said. Since we can't magically teleport to work and since most people who drive to work live too far to walk there, we would be defined as primitive because we essentially have no means of getting to the same destination in the same amount of time as we did when the automobiles were functioning correctly.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I'm defining being primitive as being unable to function in a situation where the technology that is required to do something for someone is absent. I believe that's the definition that Aa_Doodaa was talking about when he started this thread:

In my hypothetical scenario, I assumed that any normal situation of life (in this case, getting into the shower) would constitute the automatic action of a piece of technology (in this case, some sort of mechanism that turns on the water).

If technology was to advance to the point that we no longer have to use our hands to turn on the water when we get into the shower, then we would be helpless without that technology if we never knew any better. Assuming it's the year 2381, where any normal situation of life constitutes the automatic action of a piece of technology, the absence of (or in this case, the destruction of) that technology would cause confusion and the inability to interpret the situation. Hence, one would be unable to function normally and would thus be primitive, by my definition.

Think about how I envision the world as well. I don't imagine every person being as seemingly helpless as a caveman who doens't know what to do in his time. I imagine that people would grow smarter and have these brain chips that instantly give knowledge to people on how to do the things the people have done for ages (hopefully all the things we can all consider as a whole right). I know there are ups and downs to every piece of technology, but it's our job to make sure that the technology we possess is any good. We could test children just for like a short period of time to see if these brainchips work efficiently (not to mention, I would love it if I could have like a wireless internet in our chips to talk to others and play games using your mind). Sure humans would be lazy in many new ways, but would that mean that they don't know how to do something or would still not do something they do today? I mean look at the Constitution of the United States. Do you guys honestly think the concepts written in it would change in a certain time period? There might be a new constitution or something (hopefully to unify the entire), but do you think that people should forget such a document like the U.S. Constitution? I would to think that there would be more debates in the future on how to use technology and what is legal or illegal (I would really hate government restriction, but I feel as though it would exist).(random thought) If the idea of robots concerns anyone, I would to think that if robots could think for themselves and some start to act bad, it doesn't represent all of the robots, but simply those that would not act proper in society.

[Ground_Breaker]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

I imagine that people would grow smarter and have these brain chips that instantly give knowledge to people on how to do the things the people have done for ages

But you didn't answer the question which was what would happen if that brain chip shorted out one day and we were left to fend for ourselves, without that instant knowledge about things people have done for ages. What would happen is that we would not have that knowledge about what people have done for ages and we would truly be primitive (in this case, I define primitive as being as "helpless as a caveman", like you said).

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

but would that mean that they don't know how to do something or would still not do something they do today?

If the "brain chip" you described was to malfunction, then the answer would most likely be yes.

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

I would to think that if robots could think for themselves and some start to act bad, it doesn't represent all of the robots, but simply those that would not act proper in society.

This doesn't seem to be quite on topic, but I want to address it anyway.

What separates "good" robots and "bad" robots in that situation?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

But you didn't answer the question which was what would happen if that brain chip shorted out one day and we were left to fend for ourselves, with out that instant knowledge about things people have done for ages. What would happen is that we would not have that knowledge about what people have done for ages and we would be truly be primitive (in this case, I define primitive as being as "helpless as a caveman", like you said).

Well, I would hope that such a thing would never happen. Even if it does, the knowledge stored by what I intend of the future's brainchips would either be temporary or perminant. Some people would bound to still have knowledge in their mind and would have to unfortunatly teach others the old fashioned way if they cannot repair their brain chips. If everyone's brainchips malfunctioned or shorted out one day (which we should take many precautions to prevent), we would still have books and writings of the past. I'm afraid that they would just have to do things the old fashioned way by reading these books and learning unless their brainchips can be repaired.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

If the "brain chip" you described was to malfunction, then the answer would most likely be yes.

Perhaps, but maybe a scientist would write how to make the brainchips or something on a blueprint. If we examine such writings or however they might have stored knowledge besides a brainchip (because brainchips would be useless). Perhaps if we retrieved the blueprints of a brainchip, we could solve such a problem with brainchips and repair them to make back ups for society. I would hope that any primitive characteristics of the future would only be as temporary as when there is a power outage and I play chess and then come back to play flash flash revolution once the power outage is over.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

This doesn't seem to be quite on topic, but I want to address it anyway.

What separates "good" robots and "bad" robots in that situation?

Well, the same standards that seperate good people from bad people. If a robots want to take life, liberty, or property without a justified cause, I would classify it as a bad robot. However, if a person or robot is proven to have caused an innocent robot to do bad things by hacking into the robot or editing with it's design, the person or robot that hacked or tampered with the innocent robot would be guilty.

[jewpinthethird]

Y'all act as if mankind couldn't survive on it's own without our technology. Nonsense. Mankind has survived some 10,000 years without the aid of electricity, cars, TV, computers, etc.

If your car breaks down, you don't rip off your clothes and start throwing your sh*t everywhere. You don't suddenly forget all your times tables and language abilities. No, chances are you figure out some way to get your car back up and running.

I'm sure y'all have lived through a power-outage before and the world didn't end.

Just because someone isn't capable of fixing something doesn't mean they can't learn how to. The great thing about man is that we are able to learn, and create. No other species on Earth has demonstrated our culturally adaptability.

[Ground_Breaker]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

Well, I would hope that such a thing would never happen. Even if it does, the knowledge stored by what I intend of the future's brainchips would either be temporary or perminant. Some people would bound to still have knowledge in their mind and would have to unfortunatly teach others the old fashioned way if they cannot repair their brain chips. If everyone's brainchips malfunctioned or shorted out one day (which we should take many precautions to prevent), we would still have books and writings of the past. I'm afraid that they would just have to do things the old fashioned way by reading these books and learning unless their brainchips can be repaired.

(...)

Perhaps, but maybe a scientist wrote how to make the brainchips or something on a blueprint. If we examine such writings or how ever they might have stored knowledge besides a brainchip (because brainchips would not be invented unless their design was written up somewhere and stored safely hopefully). Perhaps if we retrieved the blueprints of a brainchip, we could solve such a problem with brainchips and repair them to make back ups for society. I would hope that any primitive characteristics of the future would only be as temporary as when there is a power outage and I play chess and then come back to play flash flash revolution once the power outage is over.

But assuming we have such advanced technology as "brain chips", why would we write down blueprints and store them away somewhere other than a computer? I see your point here, but we're talking about highly advanced technology, and I think in a time period where we might have something like what you're describing, we would probably consider writing things down on paper and blueprints as pretty archaic, wouldn't you think?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Well, I would just hope that nothing happens to tamper with the future to make it any more primitive than we would imagine only with the fear of losing a future and making it year 2000 all over again. I am not afraid of existing without our technology though. I absolutely agree that humans can go on without technology, but life is way better with technology. I play chess when the power is out. If this was some sort of dramatic power outage, I would not go around screaming the power is out, but instead play my chess. I know that humans have the ability to adapt to the circumstances that might occur. If there are any scientists in our world who made technology before, they can make technology again and help any crisis that may occur with back ups for technology. Plus, if we really are talking about the future here, they would have some real safety precautions for their technologies and not let a simple power outage ruin everything they do.

Edit: I understand your viewpoint, but I mean scientists who develop such technology will not truely forget everything they create. Even if blueprints seem to be "archaic" (which I would agree are "archaic"), the future would still have to rely on learning from the past in order to create a better future (make blueprints and not screw the world over). If the future is truely the future, they would know that such data would need to be stored in multiple places. If brain chips weren't too far off on our lifetime, wouldn't you write down blueprints if you had all of the knowledge? Even if these blueprints might be a bit off because they are more "archaic" than what a scientist might have recorded on a computer, I just know that a scientist will find his/her way to get out of such a crisis.

[Ground_Breaker]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

If your car breaks down, you don't rip off your clothes and start throwing your sh*t everywhere. You don't suddenly forget all your times tables and language abilities. No, chances are you figure out some way to get your car back up and running.

Of course we wouldn't act that primitively. Not in today's world. But we're talking about a world where technology does just about everything for us. Think about it. If technology does everything for us, what is the point of even going to school to learn anything? We won't ever need to apply that knowledge anywhere, because a machine has taken over that job for us. We may not ever need to learn multiplication or advanced language capabilities.

Now, if all that technology is destroyed or is lost somehow, will we be primitive?