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

[Master_of_the_Faster]

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

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

My answer to that question regarding anything: Not if a scientist can eventually retrieve the lost data on technology or recreate the data that they might have had using the knowledge that they have.

Also, regarding the idea of a robot, they can either be designed to have personal feelings and live for themselves or as robots that simply serve human beings. Humans would reserve the right to choose what they would intend to create robots for because we would create these robots. As for the idea of what would happen to jobs and the economy, that's a good issue that we can debate. As for what the consequences of destroying a robot should be, that's also another good issue to debate.

[Ground_Breaker]

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

My answer to that question regarding anything: Not if a scientist can eventually retrieve the lost data on technology or recreate the data that they might have had using the knowledge that they have.

So basically you're saying that because scientists will be able to go back and retrieve any lost information, if such a phenomenon as every piece of technology in the world becoming disabled should occur, we won't be primitive. If we can dig under the earth and find dusty blueprints of brain chips we can reproduce them and everything will be normal again.

Let's just assume that the kind of technology we've been talking about is computers and other devices of an electronic nature, because the invention of the wheel is considered an advancement in technology.

Since there is no electronic technology functioning anywhere in the world, you're saying we need to look at pen-and-paper records describing that technology, so we can re-create it. We would need to uproot nearly every single advancement in electronic technology in the history of mankind in order to re-create something as advanced as a brain chip. We would need to start from scratch, essentially. Do you think, realistically, that we'd be able to find all of the information we would need?

Now I bet that you'll probably respond with something like, "Well, not necessarily because we'll have the knowledge from before the brain chips malfunctioned." But again, let's be realistic. Would a scientist need to know the explicit inner workings of every major advancement in electronic technology just in case something as catastrophic as the disabling of all electronic technology in the world were to happen? I doubt it, in fact I think it would be ridiculous for a brain chip to feed such information to someone automatically. No one ever thinks something that catastrophic will ever happen until it does. (i.e. September 11th)

Also, what if you ask me if I want a brain chip and I say no? Don't you think that there are going to be people who won't want a brain chip? Or are you forcing everyone to have one? If you aren't, which, if I read what you thought about the Constitution correctly, you aren't, then isn't it possible that there will be many people who won't want a brain chip?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

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

So basically you're saying that because scientists will be able to go back and retrieve any lost information, if such a phenomenon as every piece of technology in the world becoming disabled should occur, we won't be primitive. If we can dig under the earth and find dusty blueprints of brain chips we can reproduce them and everything will be normal again.

Let's just assume that the kind of technology we've been talking about is computers and other devices of an electronic nature, because the invention of the wheel is considered an advancement in technology.

Since there is no electronic technology functioning anywhere in the world, you're saying we need to look at pen-and-paper records describing that technology, so we can re-create it. We would need to uproot nearly every single advancement in electronic technology in the history of mankind in order to re-create something as advanced as a brain chip. We would need to start from scratch, essentially. Do you think, realistically, that we'd be able to find all of the information we would need?

Now I bet that you'll probably respond with something like, "Well, not necessarily because we'll have the knowledge from before the brain chips malfunctioned." But again, let's be realistic. Would a scientist need to know the explicit inner workings of every major advancement in electronic technology just in case something as catastrophic as the disabling of all electronic technology in the world were to happen? I doubt it, in fact I think it would be ridiculous for a brain chip to feed such information to someone automatically. No one ever thinks something that catastrophic will ever happen until it does. (i.e. September 11th)

Well, I know that the idea of brain chips might be rediculous of how a person might want to store something in their mind, but it's really up to the user (hopefully). They would either be able to store what they want in their mind for ever or temporary ideas that are stored in the brainchips themselves. The idea that a catastrophic condition would occur with probably futuristic terrorists and we would have to respond (a future gov't issue that would be debated if happened by some sort of futuristic conservatives and liberals or what ever parties may exist). I know that trying to recreate the brain chips themselves would be probably a difficult task for a scientist if they didn't keep the knowledge inside their mind using a brain chip, but I feel as though they could still recreate computers and make these computers function to see if blueprints are still on them. A scientist would not need to recreate every single thing in technology, but just enough to be able to make back up brain chips. As for if the knowledge on brain chips in the computers is lost, I'm afraid the people would either have to work with what they know or can find in some written blueprints (seems highly unlikely, but is still a possibility).

Also, what if you ask me if I want a brain chip and I say no? Don't you think that there are going to be people who won't want a brain chip? Or are you forcing everyone to have one? If you aren't, which, if I read what you thought about the Constitution correctly, you aren't, then isn't it possible that there will be many people who won't want a brain chip?

Yes, people could choose to not have brainchips, but I think that if everyone is smart to the same degree (with their own uniqueness), they can help society and not be kept away by it. I think that if you refuse a brainchip, the futuristic society might keep you away from them or something (I would hate to see discrimination in the future, but it's possible). Unless you don't trust the functions of a brainchip, I don't see why a person would refuse to have one. I believe that you could buy a brain chip and obtain only the knowledge that you want and take it off if you wish.

Edit: However, I do believe that people who don't have brain chips might not get as much income as people with brain chips or robots. I think that certain futuristic job fields would require the use of such technology unless you can prove that with your bare mind, you are capable of functioning at an extremely high rate (probably not possible) or if you already have enough knowledge to perform a job if you remove your brain chip. I have no opinions on this idea, but I think that society might think along these lines with such technology.

[Smok3y]

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

Most of the "what if's" are taken care of in the development process of modern technology, and it's likely that even will be even more true as it progresses. Doubtful this situation could ever be possible.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

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

I understand that my reasoning may be a bit hypothetical as it seems, but I'm just using one idea of a future to represent the idea that the advancement of technology might make us primitive in the long run, but only under certain circumstances. If scientists cannot retrieve lost data or something on technology, then yes the technology would make us primitive at a time. However, you never know if technology might go from the years 2007 to 2315 and back to (after hypothetical incident) 2007 to 2315 and then progress. If that was the case, technology would technically be progressing, but probably not as far as the people in 2315 would be living. The idea of progressing in technology really has to do with what you guys refer to as "the long run".

Edit: To me, "the long run" means three things. As far as the sun doesn't blow up (perhaps there might be a way to stop this but I extremely doubt it), as far as technology to make humans live for ever (I would doubt this, but I would definatly hope that it's possible), or as far as time goes on for (in which case, the idea of what time really means is debated).

[Ground_Breaker]

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

Well, I know that the idea of brainchips might be rediculous of how a person might want to store something in their mind

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not so I won't snap back at you like I was planning to.

I don't think that the idea of a brain chip storing information in your mind somehow is ridiculous, I think that it would be ridiculous for a brain chip to give you the information you would need to counter such a widespread catastrophe, should it occur, because it would be like describing the theory of relativity to a plumber: he doesn't care. Not that we wouldn't care, but it's like I said, no one thinks something like that will happen until it does, so it would be unnecessary to have a brain chip give you that information really.

As for the rest of your first paragraph, I think it's mostly speculation about what you think might happen in the future. Except for:

A scientist would not need to recreate every single thing in technology, but just enough to be able to make back up brain chips.

I disagree.

Think about this: Where did all of the information on the brain chip come from? Did it come with the brain chip when you bought it? Does it come from a remote database somewhere that has everything everyone has ever known in the entire world? Do you go in for upgrades at certain intervals to receive new information that's been added?

Obviously, we don't live in a world where brain chips are an everyday thing, but my point is that the information would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely come from another computer. But, like we said, all electronic technology has been wiped out, so what would we do?

If you're about to say, "Well, stupid, we rebuild the computer," then how are we supposed to put all of the lost data back onto the computer once it's been destroyed, even if we do manage to somehow rebuild it? Even rebuilding the computer itself would be next to impossible, because we would need to find records of how to create all the components that make up a computer.

I'd say that what you're describing is highly implausible, realistically speaking.

Yes, people could choose to not have brainchips, but I think that if everyone is smart to the same degree (with their own uniqueness), they can help society and not be kept away by it. I think that if you refuse a brainchip, the futuristic society might keep you away from them or something (I would hate to see discrimination in the future, but it's possible). Unless you don't trust the functions of a brainchip, I don't see why a person would refuse to have one. I believe that you could buy a brain chip and obtain only the knowledge that you want and take it off if you wish.

So you're saying that if you had a brain chip and I decided to figure stuff out the old-fashioned way, you would probably ostracize me? You're talking about some high-tech segregation, my friend.

I could refuse a brain chip because I don't like the inventor. Does that necessarily mean I don't trust the technology? I don't think so.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

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

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not so I won't snap back at you like I was planning to.

I wasn't being sarcastic and I don't plan to start a war about the future, but simply a discussion. I just wasn't that sure about what you meant about brain chips being rediculous.

I don't think that the idea of a brain chip storing information in your mind somehow is ridiculous, I think that it would be ridiculous for a brain chip to give you the information you would need to counter such a widespread catastrophe, should it occur, because it would be like describing the theory of relativity to a plumber: he doesn't care. Not that we wouldn't care, but it's like I said, no one thinks something like that will happen until it does, so it would be unnecessary to have a brain chip give you that information really.

Even in what I would call the future that I described, I would not force anyone to have any knowledge of any sort with brain chips. It's just that I feel as though the people themselves might enforce certain futuristic standards (not me). If information gathered on a brain chip is possible and if someone decides to store that information luckily, we would probably be able to understand how the brain chip was made or experiment with what he/she knows.

Think about this: Where did all of the information on the brain chip come from? Did it come with the brain chip when you bought it? Does it come from a remote database somewhere that has everything everyone has ever known in the entire world? Do you go in for upgrades at certain intervals to receive new information that's been added?

Obviously, we don't live in a world where brain chips are an everyday thing, but my point is that the information would have to come from somewhere, and it would most likely come from another computer. But, like we said, all electronic technology has been wiped out, so what would we do?

If you're about to say, "Well, stupid, we rebuild the computer," then how are we supposed to put all of the lost data back onto the computer once it's been destroyed, even if we do manage to somehow rebuild it? Even rebuilding the computer itself would be next to impossible, because we would need to find records of how to create all the components that make up a computer.

I'd say that what you're describing is highly implausible, realistically speaking.

You have a good point there. Unfortunatly, we probably would have to do next to the impossible to create all the components that make up a computer. We might even have to completely start from scratch with our technology, but we would progress eventually (though I doubt not any time in the expected life time of people who had brain chips and now have to create just a computer that may or may not have information on the components of a brain chip). I know that my instance is highly implausible, but so is the instance that every piece of electronic technology would be wiped out.

So you're saying that if you had a brain chip and I decided to figure stuff out the old-fashioned way, you would probably ostracize me? You're talking about some high-tech segregation, my friend.

I could refuse a brain chip because I don't like the inventor. Does that necessarily mean I don't trust the technology? I don't think so.

As for this, you can choose to refuse brain chips for what ever reason you so choose. I just feel as though society would probably use high tech segregation in the future (not me). If you had a lot of knowledge from the brain chip, wouldn't you get mad if you weren't hired because a person without a brain chip was hired over you? Again, I have no stance on this idea, but it's just interesting that I think of it.

Edit: Also, hopefully, even a person without a brain chip could still have other careers. For example, maybe there might be some sort of break throughs in science, but a brain chip itself could probably not provide a person with enough strength to play a sport (but simply the knowledge in playing the sport). There might be other futuristic careers that just about anyone could occupy without the need of brain chips.

In my opinion, if brain chips were made, they would have to rely on the internet as well as other sources to provide facts that may have to go through filtering by some sort of agency of the future (so that objectionable material can be filtered out). You would be able to choose what things that you wanted to learn like learning how to speak a certain language or how to do math. Perhaps at every single place where careers are held, they might hold special information to add to your brain chip so that you automatically know how to do something in that field. The brain chips could have universal upgrades for everyone that includes certain items that a futuristic agency would have to inform society of.

[Ground_Breaker]

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

I know that my instance is highly implausible, but so is the instance that every piece of electronic technology would be wiped out.

Well, yeah. We're both speaking hypothetically here. I'm just using the destruction of all electronic technology as a catalyst for our discussion. The question is whether or not we become more primitive as a result of our reliability on technology. If the technology isn't removed at some point, then there's no discussion.

If you had a lot of knowledge from the brain chip, wouldn't you get mad if you weren't hired because a person with a brain chip was hired over you?

No, because it wouldn't happen. Equal treatment laws would most definitely extend to those without brain chips, assuming the majority of the population had them.

But, what job could we possibly be applying for that a robot hasn't already fulfilled at this point in the future?

In my opinion, if brain chips were made, they would have to rely on the internet as well as other sources to provide facts that may have to go through filtering by some sort of agency of the future (so that objectionable material can be filtered out). You would be able to choose what things that you wanted to learn like learning how to speak a certain language or how to do math. Perhaps at every single place where careers are held, they might hold special information to add to your brain chip so that you automatically know how to do something in that field. The brain chips could have universal upgrades for everyone that includes certain items that a futuristic agency would have to inform society of.

At this rate, you'll be getting patents for it soon!

[Master_of_the_Faster]

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

Well, yeah. We're both speaking hypothetically here. I'm just using the destruction of all electronic technology as a catalyst for our discussion. The question is whether or not we become more primitive as a result of our reliability on technology. If the technology isn't removed at some point, then there's no discussion.

Well, if all technology was destroyed and if there was no information for brain chips, then we would probably go back to figuring out how things worked like we did before computers and other electronic technologies were invented. We would be a bit "primitive", but I doubt that we would stay that way for ever unless the human race dies out all togather.

No, because it wouldn't happen. Equal treatment laws would most definitely extend to those without brain chips, assuming the majority of the population had them.

But, what job could we possibly be applying for that a robot hasn't already fulfilled at this point in the future?

True, having equal rights is very important to me and I guess a lot of jobs would be dominated by robots, but I think we would be living in a much better world. I mean do you honestly want to risk your life to save others when a robot meant to serve humans could do it for you? If the world was as good as I would expect, then I wouldn't have to risk my life to save others, but I suppose that with the combined effort of bad guys (some that may be turned bad by hacked brain chips [might I say would probably be one of the worst offenses of the future]) and bad robots (some turned bad by hackers [another very bad offense]), both humans and robots can team up to capture these bad robots and humans as well as save people. I would say that comedians and sports players have nothing to do with technology such as a brain chip. Considering that humans are humans and robots might be very hard beings (unless of course they have fake skin to mock that of humans or are soft in a way), the robots might have their own sports divisions while humans have theirs. Perhaps cyborgs would be allowed in the robot sports teams if they met certain requirements. Also, people can still be comedians without brain chips or with brain chips. After all, some people argue that robots can't tell jokes (but that's because they probably don't imagine a robot that has a mind of its own).

At this rate, you'll be getting patents for it soon!

That would be awesome! The problem is that I'm not smart enough to make such technology or anything, but I have a feeling it's possible.

[Orch_Dork]

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

well there will always be one fat mechanic left to help. or the robots can be programed to fix robots. and by the time all that will happen earth is long gone