Technology and Society: Why Techno-Fixes Fail

[Ex-User (9062)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWLtIKvZHfU

Techno-Fix

Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment

Nanotechnology! Genetic engineering! Miracle Drugs!
We are promised that new technological developments will magically save us from the dire consequences of the 300-year fossil-fueled binge known as modern industrial civilization, without demanding any fundamental changes in our behavior.

There is a pervasive belief that technological innovation will enable us to continue our current lifestyle indefinitely and will prevent social, economic and environmental collapse.

Techno-Fix shows that negative unintended consequences of technology are inherently predictable and unavoidable, techno-optimism is completely unjustified, and modern technology, in the presence of continued economic growth, does not promote sustainability, but hastens collapse.

The authors demonstrate that most technological solutions to social and technology-created problems are ineffective.

They explore the reasons for the uncritical acceptance of new technologies, show who really controls the direction of technological change, and then advocate extensive reform.

This comprehensive exposé is a powerful argument for why we can and should put the genie back in the bottle.

An insightful and powerful critique, it is required reading for anyone who is concerned about blind techno-optimism and believes that the time has come to make science and technology more socially and environmentally responsible.

For more information, please visit technofix.org.

Techno-Fix: Why Technology Won't Save Us Or the Environment: Michael Huesemann, Joyce Huesemann: 9780865717046: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41gg39ZuBLL.@@AMEPARAM@@41gg39ZuBLL

​

 

[Architect]

There are two camps generally in society, techno optimists and techno pessimists. The pessimists have a long history dating back to the Luddite revolution in Britain in the 1800's, it being hard to follow the sentiment to before the Industrial Revolution. There's another camp (probably the largest) of people in the middle who don't think one way or another about it.

The problem with either camp is, like any ideological philosophy, that they apply the same thinking to all situations. These people obviously take that approach. Common to these people is the underlying idea that mankind is somehow evil and must pay for our sins.

At any rate technology certainly can "save" the environment (whatever that means - bring it back to a pre Industrial Revolution state presumably). But of course the question is whether we want to pay the cost of that.

I'll finish by pointing out that nature is far more destructive of nature then anything we come up with. Volcanos (and super volcanos), meteors, solar storms ... the only reason we don't see a lot of this is because we're anthropomorphically here late in the Earth's development. And we don't see things from a geologic viewpoint.

 

[Analyzer]

The problem with either camp is, like any ideological philosophy, that they apply the same thinking to all situations. These people obviously take that approach. Common to these people is the underlying idea that mankind is somehow evil and must pay for our sins.

At any rate technology certainly can "save" the environment (whatever that means - bring it back to a pre Industrial Revolution state presumably). But of course the question is whether we want to pay the cost of that.

Would you say you are a techno-optimist? What is your view on technology and the role of science?

I'll finish by pointing out that nature is far more destructive of nature then anything we come up with. Volcanos (and super volcanos), meteors, solar storms ... the only reason we don't see a lot of this is because we're anthropomorphically here late in the Earth's development. And we don't see things from a geologic viewpoint.

This exactly why I have hard time taking the Global Warming/Climate Change proponents seriously.

 

[Architect]

Would you say you are a techno-optimist? What is your view on technology and the role of science?

I'd call myself a techno-realist. Maybe because of a physics background, I believe I see where technology is exponential and where it is not. For example, energy creation and transmission. If you look at this technology we're still in the 1800s. Batteries are still chemical Leyden Jars essentially, and there is no storage capacity in the Grid. What is produced must be consumed. Fusion power looks just as distant as it always has, and our history of energy production is pure exploitation based. Will this change/will there be a breakthrough? Possibly, but I'm not seeing the physics for that.

However when it comes to information technologies it has been exponential grown and will continue to be, in my view.

This exactly why I have hard time taking the Global Warming/Climate Change proponents seriously.

Not sure what you mean there, but that's OK. I believe that the evidence is clear that we are causing Global Warming, and I'm OK with that. The Industrial Revolution was worth it. Now we need to fix it, that's all, and I believe we have the technology (but perhaps not the will) to do so.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

It would be nice if you'd focus on addressing the specific points raised in the presentation.
(I.e. paraphrasing:
"Every technological solution to a problem created by a technology will spawn numerous new problems and
if we blindly repeat the same solution process it will lead to the accumulation of unsolved problems", etc.)

We can have a different thread on climate change skepticism and cross-link to it, if you wish.

Finally, your argument about nature being the more destructive force at work:
that may be true from time to time with large-scale catastrophic events,
but they do occur relatively seldom in geological time AND
there is nothing much we can do to prevent them.
Small-scale events are more frequent, but
for instance, a group of errupting vulcanoes or an earthquake's effect are limited to a specific location and thus can be mitigated.
This is not true in the technological society, given that globalization is the process of distributing largely identical systems globally.
If there is a catastrophic event at one location within this globalized system,
it will have severe effects everywhere else (butterfly effect).
(Take for instance the financial crisis (increased high-frequency trading), epidemics (increased air, water and road transport), invasive species (same factors), etc. etc.)

 

[Cherry Cola]

The problem with either camp is, like any ideological philosophy, that they apply the same thinking to all situations. These people obviously take that approach. Common to these people is the underlying idea that mankind is somehow evil and must pay for our sins.

Haha so true, I remember how frustrating it was to see this when I was going through the history of western philosophy, so many good ideas ruined by too rigid application, or attempts to turn them into theories of everything. At least some philosophers like the rotten charlatan Hegel had the good taste not to hide this at all, his philosophy basically being all that was wrong with every theory condensed into a theory and then stretched as to apply to exactly everything any time in both directions.

Hegel was much admired the fucker.

 

[Architect]

It would be nice if you'd focus on addressing the specific points raised in the presentation.
(I.e. paraphrasing:
"Every technological solution to a problem created by a technology will spawn numerous new problems and
if we blindly repeat the same solution process it will lead to the accumulation of unsolved problems", etc.)

This is the same old thing these people say though, I've heard it a million times and it's utterly wrong. As I've said they've got tunnel vision where they are always seeing and picking cases they think supports their view. In other words a couple of stupid humanities geeks who have their heads up their asses when it comes to understanding how much technology they use daily, depend on, and works so well they don't even notice it.

Take dentistry technology. Has 21st century dentistry created more problems than it's solved? Fuck no! I've still got my teeth, even 100 years ago I would have lost most of them by now (and I'm considered young, but today's standards).

I was thinking about this watching the original Star Treks on my big theater screen. Ever seen Spocks face blown up? Ever noticed Nimoy's teeth? This was just the 60's, not long ago. They're black around the edges. Totally black and nasty around the gums and between the teeth. They hadn't invented the dental hygiene we have now, like an electric toothbrush that works as good as a professional cleaning. Or the ultrasonic cleaning they use at my office. Oh yeah, technology creates problems, now people are living longer because their teeth aren't rotting out of their heads like they did for the Egyptians*, now we have to figure out how to feed all these older people. Technology sucks!

that may be true from time to time with large-scale catastrophic events,
but they do occur relatively seldom in geological time AND
there is nothing much we can do to prevent them.

Oh dear lord. You're assuming your conclusion, that we can't do anything about catastrophic events which is completely wrong. How about Tsunamis, or Tornados, don't you think our early detection is doing something about those problems? What about the Meteor detection system (99%+ at this point of solar system objects), or the solar flare early warning system? That's just the start, we have the technology to do even more, TODAY.

it will have severe effects everywhere else (butterfly effect).
(Take for instance the financial crisis (increased high-frequency trading), epidemics (increased air, water and road transport), invasive species (same factors), etc. etc.)

Seriously? The "butterfly effect" was an 19th century idea that IS COMPLETELY WRONG. There is no butterfly effect, our science (which is a technology) has long ago proven that idea false. Let your butterfly flap for an hour. Or all day, or squash the nasty thing under your foot. Makes zero difference to the world.

* The history of Dentistry is fascinating, I recommend looking into it. In particular the huge importance bread and dentistry (or the lack of it) in ancient Egypt. But to continue this example from Nimoy, go do a little search (in that horrible computer search engine that is causing so much trouble) for 16th century skulls. Or even earlier - go look up a picture of the skull of Richard III which was found last year. See those deposits on the teeth? Know what they are? Plaque that was on there so long it became calcified. Want to kiss your dear lovers mouth filled with those?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I would have expected a little more class from you.
Maybe you're having a bad day.

 

[Architect]

I would have expected a little more class from you.
Maybe you're having a bad day.

Apologies, read it again, I edited for a more measured tone. I do get tired of seeing the same wrong ideas over and over again, not your fault.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

* You are still only attacking straw men. However:
I am very familiar with the history of dentistry, thank you very much.
It didn't start in egypt, fyi.

Now, can you tell me how a wheat-centric diet created the neccessity for dental procedures?
(Monoculture, hint hint)

What do you have to say about all the nice allergies and heavy metal poisoning that current-generation dentistry has to offer?

Other than that, are you highlighting the importance of tooth-brushes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_cleaning_twig

 

[redbaron]

What do you have to say about all the nice allergies and heavy metal poisoning that current-generation dentistry has to offer?

Better than infected gums. Plus they're things that can be abated and controlled. Substitute materials can be found. Allergies and heavy metal poisoning are side-effects of the methods and meterials being used, they aren't necessarily inherent to dentistry.

Other than that, are you highlighting the importance of tooth-brushes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_cleaning_twig

The source in the Wikipedia article is literally just a random news article that states, "professionals" have reported it to be effective. Given how pathetic the majority of scientific reporting is, could you at least provide an actual source?

 

[Latte]

Staying clear of this thread for now other than to report my super exciting ultra exotic anecdotal experience adventure with west african tooth cleaning twigs. They work just fine. A bit less effective than toothbrushes, mechanically. But not to a degree that matters.

 

[Architect]

It didn't start in egypt, fyi.

I didn't say it did

Now, can you tell me how a wheat-centric diet created the neccessity for dental procedures?(Monoculture, hint hint)

Avoiding the topic and beside the point. I'm talking about dentistry being a good technology, not debating the merits of wheat.

What do you have to say about all the nice allergies and heavy metal poisoning that current-generation dentistry has to offer?

Seriously? I've had lots of metal fillings, that were only recently finally replaced by modern amalgams, with no ill effects. You are proving my point, which is that the fault with your thinking is taking the strength of science and technology - which is that it learns and improves, is a fault, because it's not perfect when it is first developed.

Other than that, are you highlighting the importance of tooth-brushes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_cleaning_twig

How is that twig not a technology?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Avoiding the topic and beside the point. I'm talking about dentistry being a good technology, not debating the merits of wheat.

No, that's precisely the point.
The emergence of monocultural farming and, as a result, wheat-centric diet created the need for dentistry.
A new technology created the need to fix a problem with another technology.
Precisely on topic.
At least if you had watched the presentation.

Seriously? I've had lots of metal fillings, that were only recently finally replaced by modern amalgams, with no ill effects. You are proving my point, which is that the fault with your thinking is taking the strength of science and technology - which is that it learns and improves, is a fault, because it's not perfect when it is first developed.

Well, it's the latest craze in the odentological/toxological field,
maybe your body just accumulates heavy metals differently than most people.

Symptoms include, among others:
cognitive and memory impairment, irritability, insomnia,
peripheral numbness and weakness, compromised vision and hearing, immune suppression, gastrointestinal dysfunction, birth defects, hypothyroidism, asthma, neurodegenerative diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, comprised bone growth, learning disabilities, fatigue, irritability, anxiety, hypertension, lowered immunity, tinnitus, poor concentration, headaches, constipation and muscle/joint pain, respiratory problems, heart conditions, headaches, skin problems,
cognitive, liver, kidney, skin and joint disorders,
hypertension, prostate enlargement, increased cancer risk,
Alzheimer, Osteoporosis, gastrointestinal problems, food allergies,
chronic fatigue, rheumatoid arthritis, phlebitis fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, Neurocutaneous syndrome, Vertigo, Epilepsy, etc. etc.

My problem is not the scientific method, or technology per se,
my problem is the accumulation of unsolved problems, as illustrated above.

How is that twig not a technology?

Problem solved.
Good enough, next problem.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Better than infected gums. Plus they're things that can be abated and controlled. Substitute materials can be found. Allergies and heavy metal poisoning are side-effects of the methods and meterials being used, they aren't necessarily inherent to dentistry.

Demonizing dentistry was not my intention at all.
My point was, that the diet we technologically became accustomed to neccessitates dentistry.
I don't know how oftern i will have to repeat that.

The source in the Wikipedia article is literally just a random news article that states, "professionals" have reported it to be effective. Given how pathetic the majority of scientific reporting is, could you at least provide an actual source?

What are you referring to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miswak
Does that convince you of the existence of the same thing with a different name?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1013905212000181
Is that considered "an actual source"?

 

[Polaris]

The amalgam/toxic side effects debate in dentistry has somewhat subsided as the general scientific consensus is that mercury is hazardous to human health. Although, from a general scientific point of view, it is only possible to point to correlations , which is where the amalgam-proponents take their arguments. It is still not possible to find hard proof of a direct link between mercury-based fillings and the various symptoms/diseases that are generally associated with these. However, there is a general trend now in modern dentistry to avoid or even ban mercury based amalgamates in dental materials. A lot of this is due to the safety precautions necessary around the actual process of inserting the fillings, which is the time before the amalgam sets and is still considered volatile. There are several scientific articles to be found on the topic. This is the time I would consider the most hazardous, both for the patients and the operators. There is also the problem of disposal, so the argument against mercury-based fillings is sort of logical in that respect.

There was a very extensive research program run by Dr Weston Price, a dental health practitioner in the 1930s which never really received much attention other than in the alternative circles. He showed a significant correlation between a change of diet and general health issues (dhuh) in several native tribes from different areas of the world. The dental observations were quite interesting, but to this day, his findings are still controversial.

Both Archie and Salmoneus are sort of right.

 

[Ribald]

Who supports this crap with a straight face? My assessment is that this could only be motivated by some sort of teenager-like drive to be different at any cost, a desperate urge to declare everyone wrong except oneself.

Honestly I could only watch a couple minutes before wanting to puke but immediately I could name a million problems with what this charlatan said, starting perhaps with "there is no free lunch."

There is no free lunch? Oh? Seems to me it is raining free lunch. That is, there is a humongous off-planet nuclear fusion powerplant absolutely showering us with energy, and it is indeed where all of this free lunch came from in the first place. In short order, 10-20 years, solar panels will surpass the efficiency of all other forms of power generation and we will make even better use of all this free lunch than before.

There is still a ton of lunch left on the Earth itself, if you don't want to call it free that is understandable, but the 3 facts of the matter are:
1. We are using and recycling it more and more efficiently
2. We have not even come close to using everything
3. Long before we do, if ever, we will have sufficient technology to mine vastly more plentiful resources such as asteroids for lunch that is about as free as free could be.

I guess I don't see the "free lunch" running out until we occupy the entire universe. At that point I guess we will just have to recycle LOL. Even then, I doubt that a species capable of colonizing the entire universe would have truly run out of free lunch. The fact alone that the universe exists is proof of free lunch as an inherent property of the void. I think they are already starting to figure out ways to draw matter out of the vacuum. Look into the casimir effect.

I don't know why the fuck people are arguing about dentistry here. Is this real life? What an embarrassment. I shouldn't even be associated with this place anymore for hearing of it. That, or maybe we should all start a twig movement. Twigs for everything! You can brush your teeth with them. You can brush your hair with them. You can brush your dog with them. You can use them as toys. Twigs are fun! You can use twigs as weapons. You can use them to wipe your butt. You can use them as tampons. You can even eat them! It's the twig revolution, guys! WHO IS WITH ME?!!!!! VIVA LA TWIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAR!!!!

 

[Polaris]

In order to have a meaningful discussions about greater issues, it is important to get the factual details right. Architect and Salmoneus are using dentistry as an example of progress --> more progress vs. progress --> more problems. It all depends on how you look at it. I think the best way of assessing whether progress is actually useful is by measuring the positive against the negative. There are constant shifts of balance as technology takes a leap forward and we measure the effects. To different people the effects are either positive or negative, depending on outlook and understanding how even smaller changes can have significant impacts, and the context, which hasn't really been defined. At the moment the discussion is very general so it is confusing to just state "technology is bad/good", as technology in itself is not the problem. It is how we understand and apply it. Think Oppenheimer. The dentistry example could apply to many types of technological progress, and is one small, but significant area of improvement just like many other aspects of medicine.

Btw, I'm in on the Twig movement as I'm pro-technological progress. It's just a matter of applying it wisely - humans are a bit like toddlers with a new toy in that respect, so the side effects will be significant. However, as Architect pointed out; from a geological perspective, the impacts are insignificant. From an anthropocentric viewpoint, the impacts are enormous considering our relatively small geological time-frame.

 

[deadpixel]

Science cannot fix social problems, only people can fix social problems, technology is only a tool. With that being said, I really like this guys accent.

 

[Ribald]

Good luck fixing social problems without technology. Quite a lot of technology is involved in publishing and distributing books alone, not to mention other drivers for social change. Technology is precisely what has enabled social change, and the more of it we have, the more we are able to make those changes because ideas are shared and evolved more and more freely. It also gives us the abundance to make moral decisions that were much harder to make when there was a scarcity. An example of this on the horizon will be the rise of anti-speciesism. Being able to synthesize meat, there will no longer be any reason to mistreat animals and we will come to look at it as barbaric.

Technology civilizes.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

technology in itself is not the problem.

no, the problem is that it is virtually always in the control of unfettered, unscrupulous and unlimited greed.

Technology civilizes.

yeah military drones and a pandemic of urban psychosis.

 

[Ribald]

yeah military drones and a pandemic of urban psychosis.

I like drones, personally. My feelings toward their use in the middle east are positive. Precision strikes without sending in hoards of people, hell it may even have saved me from going to war. Soon drones will be delivering goods to people all over the world and providing massively redundant global mesh networks. Drones are a miracle.

I don't know how you are trying to prove that technology does not civilize. All you have to do is look around and you see things are more peaceful, healthier, and more intelligent than they have ever been. Steven Pinker agrees in his renowned book Better Angels of Our Nature. Hell, we have only had a social safety net for 100 years now, and that is just the beginning. All of the immense changes we saw in the 1900s were able to take place because communication was faster than ever and people became able to launch movements in support of egalitarian and liberating ideas.

Pessimism for pessimism's sake. Anyone can point out negatives--do you expect there to be no tradeoffs, ever? A fool can easily see, however, that obvious indicators point to technology being a great thing. The friggen life expectancy has doubled in the last 100 years. Who can argue against facts like this?

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

I don't know how you are trying to prove that technology does not civilize.

i don't think humans are civilized - that is the problem. if we were then this discussion would be unneccessary.

Pessimism for pessimism's sake. Anyone can point out negatives--do you expect there to be no tradeoffs, ever? A fool can easily see, however, that obvious indicators point to technology being a great thing.

i must not be a fool then, all i can see is ecological devastation which threatens all life on this planet and for most of which we currently have no solutions.

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

 

[Ribald]

i don't think humans are civilized - that is the problem. if we were then this discussion would be unneccessary.

How about a little perspective? For instance, apparently if this were 1300 and we didn't like, totally love our president, we would take his 2 closest friends and disembowel/castrate them while they hung above a crowd in town square, and then torture him and kill him by sticking a red hot iron up his ass.

Do we have witch trials anymore? Do we line the streets with crucified slaves who tried to rebel? God there is so much to go on about. The past was incredibly savage.

I wouldn't take the present for granted. And yet, there is still quite a long way to go. Again, perspective.

i must not be a fool then, all i can see is ecological devastation which threatens all life on this planet and for most of which we currently have no solutions.

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

Awareness of those things is good, but going all anti-science and technology is not the answer. Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean we won't soon. The world has 7 billion people in it and short of killing off a large number of them and implementing a sort of global totalitarian regime, there is no solution that doesn't involve using lots and lots of technology. Thing is, the OP is wrong about tech just creating more problems than it solves. As human flourishing continues to increase we will have the means both in terms of wealth and technology to clean up our mess and reduce our footprint to near 0. Obviously I have already mentioned solar power playing a huge part in this, but it is only 1 in any number of great solutions that will have a global impact. In vitro meat, which will be ubiquitous within 2 decades, will utterly eliminate the need for raising livestock. That is going to be a huge victory for the environment. So are a lot of other things. This is the end of the dirty era. It was a phase in our maturation.

 

[redbaron]

Thing is, the OP is wrong about tech just creating more problems than it solves.

Depends on the lens you see it through. Ecologically, technology has been nothing but detrimental. It's only when you view human life as inherently more important than an ecological system that technology becomes beneficial.

In any case, I think it's wrong to necessarily label the problem as inherent to technology. It's more what PNB said:

The problem is that it is virtually always in the control of unfettered, unscrupulous and unlimited greed.

So if one weighs up the benefits of technology based on an ecological morality, and also operates on the axiom that technology is far more often misused or abused than used correctly, it's easy to see where the issue with technology comes into play.

I find most anthropocentric concepts incredibly boring and misguided.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

As human flourishing continues to increase we will have the means both in terms of wealth and technology to clean up our mess and reduce our footprint to near 0. Obviously I have already mentioned solar power playing a huge part in this, but it is only 1 in any number of great solutions that will have a global impact. In vitro meat, which will be ubiquitous within 2 decades, will utterly eliminate the need for raising livestock. That is going to be a huge victory for the environment. So are a lot of other things. This is the end of the dirty era. It was a phase in our maturation.

was a phase? it is far from over, in fact global consumption is rising and though some countries are reducing energy consumption and CO2 emmissions they have not stopped dousing the earth in the 80,000 chemicals used in commerce, the combined effects of which are anybody's guess.
i cannot share your optimism.

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/factfiction/testing.asp

http://www.worldometers.info/view/toxchem/

 

[Ribald]

was a phase? it is far from over, in fact global consumption is rising and though some countries are reducing energy consumption and CO2 emmissions they have not stopped dousing the earth in the 80,000 chemicals used in commerce, the combined effects of which are anybody's guess.
i cannot share your optimism.

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/factfiction/testing.asp

http://www.worldometers.info/view/toxchem/

Yes, pollution is bad. We all know that, and obviously I do not believe we are done with that phase-when I put it in the past tense I meant that from the future's perspective. You are strawmanning me here. My point is not optimism for its own sake. I'd venture to say, actually, that it is far more realistic than yours, which seems a lot more like pessimism for its own sake.

I have acknowledged that our current state is very suboptimal, and that I believe there should be more awareness of the problems you are bringing up. What I do not get is exactly what point you are trying to make, apart from that, about technology. My realism is this: it's going to keep happening whether you like it to or not; trying to stop it would be like trying to stop a freight train with bare hands. Even if you could I don't think it would be a good idea, for reasons I have only briefly discussed so far. You don't propose any alternative, and I pretty much feel like there really is no alternative you possibly could propose (unless you count the twig revolution or something).

In short, I am more realistic in my approach because I am not resisting what is futile to resist, and it is simply more practical to speak in terms of optimistic outcomes because that is obviously what everyone is shooting for. I certainly could go around wailing exclusively about the negative possibilities of technology, which I absolutely acknowledge, but what is the point of that? Seriously, what?

My overall case is simply more balanced. I see the good and the bad, and I make a case for the good. It baffles me, the number of people here who staunchly refuse to acknowledge even the slightest good, to the point of criticizing... dentistry?

The case for optimism proves that it isn't just baseless. We live in a more comfortable world than ever before. The fact alone that we have toilets and a functioning sewer system makes this world a kind of utopia. So does something like anesthetic practice, which has only been around for 150 years; before, you would have had some truly nightmarish pain to go through during what are now routine operations. The list goes on. And on. And on. Diseases eradicated. Deaths prevented, by the billion. It truly takes incredible hubris to refuse to acknowledge what great things have come from technology, and it disturbs me to see "optimism" begin to turn into a sort of slur.

 

[redbaron]

My overall case is simply more balanced. I see the good and the bad, and I make a case for the good.

Still stuck on the anthropocentric mindset though.

 

[Ribald]

Still stuck on the anthropocentric mindset though.

As opposed to? What is your alternative, so I know what to address?

 

[Latte]

I don't see why it shouldn't be anthropocentric. Any eco-centric view can be (and necessarily at some cognitive level is) incorporated into an anthropocentric and/or autocentric view with the glue of "what would feel/be best for humans/me" when it comes to how things develop. Beyond direct "material" consequence, extending into the realm of satisfying moral/ethical or aesthetic preference.

In the end, there is no necessary contradiction between them.

 

[Polaris]

- Keeping in mind anthropocentrism vs. shallow anthropocentrism.

 

[redbaron]

More to the point.

 

[Latte]

In the case of shallow/naive anthropocentrism, the most efficient course is to argue within the framework of anthropocentrism or autocentrism to incorporate eco sub-centrism into the view of the person with a shallow anthropocentric view so that its importance within an anthropocentric framework can be appreciated by the other person.

If one espouses eco-centrism without putting it thoroughly into the context of anthropo or auto centrism it will easily be interpreted and presented in a manner disjointed from reasonably contextualized concerns involving the wellbeing of humans, and a discussion gets nowhere, with the person espousing anthropocentrism seeing the person espousing eco-centrism as naive or blind to the larger picture and vice versa.

If the anthropocentrist does not explicitly mention the value of ecology as a part of anthropocentrism, the same easily occurs, of course.

Some participants in the thread arguing either way will probably find out that some of the others aren't as blind to certain things as they thought.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

Yes, pollution is bad. We all know that, and obviously I do not believe we are done with that phase-when I put it in the past tense I meant that from the future's perspective. You are strawmanning me here.

i am not strawmanning at all. i merely took what you said at face value :

This is the end of the dirty era. It was a phase in our maturation.

i don't see anything that implied a future perspective (i.e. something completely different)

My point is not optimism for its own sake. I'd venture to say, actually, that it is far more realistic than yours, which seems a lot more like pessimism for its own sake.

evidently we have reached different conclusions after looking at (presumably vastly different) facts, i don't really know what i've said that would lead you to conclude that my viewpoint seems like pessimism for its own sake, whatever that means.

I have acknowledged that our current state is very suboptimal, and that I believe there should be more awareness of the problems you are bringing up. What I do not get is exactly what point you are trying to make, apart from that, about technology. My realism is this: it's going to keep happening whether you like it to or not; trying to stop it would be like trying to stop a freight train with bare hands. Even if you could I don't think it would be a good idea, for reasons I have only briefly discussed so far. You don't propose any alternative, and I pretty much feel like there really is no alternative you possible could propose (unless you count the twig revolution or something).

the point i am trying to make is that the vast and as yet not fully understood environmental problems we now face are the result of 'uncivilized' and still rampant abuse of technology and that i am not at all optimistic that technological solutions will be found in time or at all.
no, i don't really have an alternative (apart from the twig revolution!) but that doesn't invalidate my pessimism.

In short, I am more realistic in my approach because I am not resisting what is futile to resist, and it is simply more practical to speak in terms of optimistic outcomes because that is obviously what everyone is shooting for. I certainly could go around wailing exclusively about the negative possibilities of technology, which I absolutely acknowledge, but what is the point of that? Seriously, what?

sorry, but as i see it nothing in this paragraph validates your optimism.
what is the point? the point is that the rampant consumerism of modern civilization poses a severe threat to all life. if people are made aware of this they might change their behaviour and at least slow the pace of the devastation giving technology a little longer to try and undo some of the damage. one can dream.

The case for optimism proves that it isn't just baseless. We live in a more comfortable world than ever before. The fact alone that we have toilets and a functioning sewer system makes this world a kind of utopia. So does something like anesthetic practice, which has only been around for 150 years; before, you would have had some truly nightmarish pain to go through during what are now routine operations. The list goes on. And on. And on. Diseases eradicated. Deaths prevented, by the billion. It truly takes incredible hubris to refuse to acknowledge what great things have come from technology, and it disturbs me to see "optimism" begin to turn into a sort of slur.

of course technology has given us many awesome things, i never said otherwise - you are strawmanning.
optimism without basis in reality is a very dangerous thing. too many people continue their indulgent and wasteful lifestyles instead of making small changes because they think 'it's cool, scientists will fix all these problems for us'.
i really hope they do.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

If you had bothered to let the man speak, you would have discovered that he makes an appeal for an effort of introducing large-scale sustainable energy, among other forms, in the form of solar energy.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

As opposed to? What is your alternative, so I know what to address?

Holistic thinking.

 

[BD36005]

The wierd thing about this presentation is that it assumes problems are not inherent to life in general. Sure technology creates problems but only because it changes the context of an overall situation or preferred modality of an act. The essential question has to be why did technological advancement start in the first place and under what conditions?The reason why it started in the first place is likely because or greatest asset is our brains and our wants are limitless, and it probably started in a state where our resource base couldn't meet our demand. The reason why we depend on technological solutions to problems is because social change is hard and usually glacial in its approach to problems. Social change that occurs too quickly causes opposition, struggle and conflict. Problems are not going away because its unlikely that there is such a thing as a steady unchanging state in which society could exist in forever; that would be called paradise or unchangeable despotism (depending on how optimistic you are). Technology creators don't consider the unexpected consequences of the technology they produces; yup cause they don't have crystal balls at the ready unfortunately. Technology only takes something that you could already do and bootstraps nature on it to allow you to do it better, to a greater extent or with better efficiency, whether we're talking missile technology(destruction) or cooking (digestion).

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

The wierd thing about this presentation is that it assumes problems are not inherent to life in general.1 Sure technology creates problems but only because it changes the context of an overall situation or preferred modality of an act. The essential question has to be why did technological advancement start in the first place and under what conditions? The reason why it started in the first place is likely because or greatest asset is our brains and our wants are limitless2, and it probably started in a state where our resource base couldn't meet our demand.3 The reason why we depend on technological solutions to problems is because social change is hard and usually glacial in its approach to problems.4 Social change that occurs too quickly causes opposition, struggle and conflict.5 Problems are not going away because its unlikely that there is such a thing as a steady unchanging state in which society could exist in forever; that would be called paradise or unchangeable despotism (depending on how optimistic you are).6 Technology creators don't consider the unexpected consequences of the technology they produces; yup cause they don't have crystal balls at the ready unfortunately.7 Technology only takes something that you could already do and bootstraps nature on it to allow you to do it better, to a greater extent or with better efficiency, whether we're talking missile technology(destruction) or cooking (digestion).

1 I can't see where you got this impression.
2 Questionable.
3 Whose demand?
4 Solving a math problem can be hard and laborious too.
5 Information gap.
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
7 Futurology.

 

[Etheri]

If you had bothered to let the man speak, you would have discovered that he makes an appeal for an effort of introducing large-scale sustainable energy, among other forms, in the form of solar energy.

I don't understand. Is large-scale sustainable energy and solar energy yet another 'techno-fix' that will fail, or whom / what are you on about?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I don't understand. Is large-scale sustainable energy and solar energy yet another 'techno-fix' that will fail, or whom / what are you on about?

34:24 and onwards.