Are Humans Actually Evolving?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It seems to me that logic exists as a fundamental principle apon which evolution is based. Deductive reasoning suggests that logic existed before humans, indeed logic must have existed for all time. Intelligent design is an illusion brought about by the effect that logic had on the random interactions of matter. If something didn't work in a necesssary way for its survival, logically it could not have survived.

Conciousness is a greater manifestation of logic than unconciousness and provides a greater survival skill because it better correlates with how the Totality works. Rationality, a manifestation of conciousness, embodies an application of logic that incorporates the nature of randomness (which is merely the realms of causality that are beyond current human rapid comprehensive awareness).

I surmise that we will either go into a golden age or annihilation. The only paths to the golden age are those sufficiently reflective of the fundamental principles, such as logic, rationality, and perhaps some further evolutions on the path of logic and rationality that we have not yet manifested.

Now, how much evolution actually occurs and over what period of time? Looking at ancient texts, such as the Christian Bible and other documents of that time and before that depict human behavior, how much have people actually changed? Some countries do still crucify heritics, and much of the average behavior and average impulses are much the same. Some laws in some countries have influenced some of the behavior, and some technological advances have changed the manifestations of various behaviors (stonings don't occur nearly as often amongst adults, but drive-by shootings seem to have taken their place), but it seems to me that not much real change has actually occurred.

[Tharan]

Social change (perceptions, understandings, cultural norms) and physical change are completely different things. You can google Inteligent Design counter arguments to see examples of actual molecular change that has been documented with this modern invention we call science. Science is based in logic which itself is a method for jumping rocks in order to traverse a river. Logical methods change as new information is put into the system.

But the last 6 to 10 thousand years of conscious human history is really no time at all on a geologic or physical-evolution-through-mutation scale. Keep in mind, mutations are nearly everything everywhere and are constantly happening. The fact there are no Aristotelian Ideals in Nature, means that all organic objects have some level of uniqueness, some differentiation, and by extension, are all mutated, at least a little. Over time, the distances between trajectories becomes large.

[kennyvii]

Geneticly, Darwinnicly (smurk) speaking isn't it logical that "we' are devolving? or better, in the process of degeneration? Civilization's very success is the act of preserving the "doomed not to breed", no?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Civilization's very success is the act of preserving the "doomed not to breed", no?

I wouldn't call that its success, but I agree with your point. Without civilization, people would actually breed with mates they found desirable and the survivors would be those with the best characteristics that lead to survival.

With civilization, people who normally would not have survived due to some birth defect, inability to adapt, or insufficient level of durability are able to survive an reproduce - even if they are incapable of rearing their own children. Also, those who breed the most are the ones who are not as good at figuring out how to use birth control, those who just want to have more children to get a bigger welfare check, or those who have more of a drive to procreate than to make the kinds of achievements that children or having a relationship would be a distraction from. Often that is a matter of putting off children until later so they can have both, and then finding out that it is too late - or simply being too tired from building a career to even have sex much less raise children.

Also, the more civic-minded are the ones who recognize that overpopulation is a growing problem, and may feel it is unethical to have children. Those who either don't think or don't care about that will have children.

If all this gets passed down genetically, we will have a population of even more people (percentage-wise) who don't or can't think, and/or don't care. Civilization may ironically be its own downfall.

[kennyvii]

Civilization's very success is the act of preserving the "doomed not to breed", no?

I wouldn't call that its success, but I agree with your point. ....

With civilization, people who normally would not have survived due to some birth defect, inability to adapt, or insufficient level of durability are able to survive an reproduce - even if they are incapable of rearing their own children. Also, those who breed the most are the ones who are not as good at figuring out how to use birth control, those who just want to have more children to get a bigger welfare check, or those who have more of a drive to procreate than to make the kinds of achievements that children or having a relationship would be a distraction from. Often that is a matter of putting off children until later so they can have both, and then finding out that it is too late - or simply being too tired from building a career to even have sex much less raise children.

Here let me declare that I agree with this yet also need to admit that I would surely not have survived to breed in primeval history. Interestingly enough, however, I have yet to produce off spring in this current epoch either. I am healthy, handsome, and fully equiped for production yet still...no off spring,..no mate. is there a connection here? If there is, just for your information it must be my very low IQ. I'm dumb, always have been and I suppose it will continue. If I sound intelligent sometimes don't be fooled; I flunked my way through public high school and failed for two years in a public college. I took college algebra three times! Still i don't understand "functions". I tell you this because you as a truth seeker might like to know. It seems to me that being unhealthy is nothing but being stupid still matters. If life now favors the unhealthy but does not favor the stupid I am grateful. If we are unhealthy we can now fix it. If we can't fix it we can likely mitigate it, but what can be done about the stupid?

Also, the more civic-minded are the ones who recognize that overpopulation is a growing problem, and may feel it is unethical to have children. Those who either don't think or don't care about that will have children.

I must part with you here. I think we will need atleast 12 billion to do the really neat things on this Earth and, of course should we ever make the break through that sends mankind into his immediate solar system, it will be a loney time if people won't produce a multiple of this. Remember that unlike any other animal any human at any level of society produces much more than he consumes. A pair of foxes may eat 400 rabbits a year and produce 5 pups for that and only 2 manage to survive to adulthood and only one reproduce but men will casually produce at the very lowest level more than they consume every time.

If all this gets passed down genetically, we will have a population of even more people (percentage-wise) who don't or can't think, and/or don't care. Civilization may ironically be its own downfall.

Now, when stupid people live and reproduce this is cause for concern but a large number of people who are otherwise unhealthy also benifit from civilization and these, in this day, produce new thinkers thanks to civilization's advancement in medicine and other arts.

[Nordicvs]

kennyvii, the only thing stupid about you is your idea that intelligence is dependent upon education; being good at algebra does not make one intelligent---it makes one good at algebra.

(I recommend that you look up a bio on, say, Einstein or even Jonas Salk and see how "stupid" these brilliant men were in school. It will put things in perspective for you.)

Let me ask you something: are you better at "on the job training" (experiential learning), or do you find it easier to sit still and listen to instructions? And are you better with remembering names or faces?

Anyway, pay no attention to arrogant fuckass intellectuals who feed their egos by boasting about their degrees and how much they've read; that is evidence of a different (a left-brained, feminized) manner of learning, and memory retention. It is not evidence of intelligence.

As for the subject of this thread: I do not think humans have evolved for a few thousand years now---we are the same humans we were in Roman times.

Evolution really no longer applies to us, in the Darwinian sense; his work and resulting theory and observations relate to natural environments.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nordicvs wrote:

As for the subject of this thread: I do not think humans have evolved for a few thousand years now---we are the same humans we were in Roman times.

Yes, but I think that natural selection does produce higher and higher complexity over time, so the human brain is not finished changing.

Technologies may have the potential to speed up the rates of evolution. For instance: Genetic Engineering and Robotics could both prove significant factors.

Robots will probably replace the school teacher for young children, and I think the affect could be quite profound. A child learning for hours a day from an unemotional robot could prove as an invaluable teaching tool, it could also improve the child’s communication skills significantly because a robot can be programmed to articulate language much more perfectly than any human.

The human will perfect the technology and the technology will perfect the human. It’s a complimentary relationship.

This is why the evolution of computers can be seen as a sort of natural selection that is striving for higher complexity.

[kennyvii]

kennyvii, the only thing stupid about you is your idea that intelligence is dependent upon education; being good at algebra does not make one intelligent---it makes one good at algebra.

Sure, I know what you mean. Oh, and actually I didn't mean to say I failed three times but that I took the course three times (D, C-, B) but failed to grasp the idea of functions. I only brought it up in wonder if stupidity might be a cause for not having a family including children. Whether there exists some sort of subconscious control mechanism.

As for the subject of this thread: I do not think humans have evolved for a few thousand years now---we are the same humans we were in Roman times.

Evolution really no longer applies to us, in the Darwinian sense; his work and resulting theory and observations relate to natural environments.

True, but now isn't there some sort of theory regarding immediate evolution? Someting about species adapting in a single generation? I remember something about rats raised on a turntable (these played records in the good ol'days.). The rats learned to balance quite well over time but what was amazing was that their immediate progeny incubated and born living on the turn table had biologically adapted somehow. I don't recall the details nor what this theory is called.

[Nordicvs]

Yes, but I think that natural selection does produce higher and higher complexity over time, so the human brain is not finished changing.

Again, how is that "natural" selection? A species in control of its own 'evolution' to such a degree is not natural, especially when its environment is artificial. Evolutionary theory stopped applying to humans around 11 thousand years ago (when when stopped moving around and settled along the Tigris and Euphrates). We stopped evolving (in the way Darwin reckoned) at the point we became domesticated.

Logically, it's unnatural selection (and fits with humanity's "survival of the weakest" strategy---a man like Bill Gates is a top "alpha male" in our world, but in the natural world he would not last a day). Over-specialization.

Our brains have grown specialized (over-specialized in non-necessity), which in nature leads to dead ends (like the inbred cheetah or that species of bird with the increasingly longer and longer tail feathers, disabling its ability to fly). Specialization exponentially limits adaptibility---decreasing options for species survival. It's painting oneself into an evolutionary corner, which humans are doing socio-culturally; a self-created, self-imposed blind alley.

Technologies may have the potential to speed up the rates of evolution. For instance: Genetic Engineering and Robotics could both prove significant factors.

Technology has nothing to do with evolution (this word no longer applies to humans); genetic engineering (human self--social--engineering) has been going on for a long time, and the Age of Industrialization was the acceleration of robots, machines, replacing humans.

We really are working to hard to make ourselves obsolete. Technologicizing ourselves into extinction---which is logical (for a dead-end species, aware of its own mortality, in control of its own development and future).

Robots will probably replace the school teacher for young children, and I think the affect could be quite profound. A child learning for hours a day from an unemotional robot could prove as an invaluable teaching tool, it could also improve the child’s communication skills significantly because a robot can be programmed to articulate language much more perfectly than any human.

That'll be good for creating robot-like children who are passionless, uncreative, unproductive, thoughtless, entirely mechanical and more highly specialized in orthodox conformity (something close to the future envisioned in the film Demolition Man, but worse I'd say). It will increase the overall femininity in the world until instinct is but a myth. Give it fifty years (maybe three generations, if we make it that far), and any human will be utterly useless (unable to adapt to anything; totally dependent upon the specialized few who adapt things for the many) unless sitting and staring at a computer; slave-children to our own parent-devices.

The human will perfect the technology and the technology will perfect the human. It’s a complimentary relationship.

Humans are unsound as a species and are imperfect; our creations are imperfect. (Perfection is an absolute-ideal; illusion, it does not exist---an imperfect being could not even conceive of it, like trying to conceive of a new colour without using red, yellow, or blue.) Those creations will never perfect us, or themselves; they will only replace us---and imperfectly.

This is why the evolution of computers can be seen as a sort of natural selection that is striving for higher complexity.

Nope. Computers do not adapt to any environment (they do not procreate, or self-replicate, thus they do not better their "species" through their offspring). They do not evolve. They are tools we create, no different fundamentally than an ape using a twig to coax out termites to eat, except that it's something that directly enables them to better survive something (and the apes can survive just find without making these simple tools).

(Without input---our will---and power---food, fuel, energy---supplied to them by us, they are but heaps of inanimate metal and plastic.)

Sure, I know what you mean. Oh, and actually I didn't mean to say I failed three times but that I took the course three times (D, C-, B) but failed to grasp the idea of functions. I only brought it up in wonder if stupidity might be a cause for not having a family including children. Whether there exists some sort of subconscious control mechanism.

Hmm...with the prevailing tendency of 'stupid' people to breed, creating massive populations (the act of which itself seems very dumb) of barely conscious ego-driven slaves, it seems that the truly smart folk don't bother with breeding at all...

This is survival of the weakest, I suppose. But I don't see intelligence as genetic, not for humans anyway.

True, but now isn't there some sort of theory regarding immediate evolution? Someting about species adapting in a single generation? I remember something about rats raised on a turntable (these played records in the good ol'days.). The rats learned to balance quite well over time but what was amazing was that their immediate progeny incubated and born living on the turn table had biologically adapted somehow. I don't recall the details nor what this theory is called.

Huh. I hadn't heard about that one.

Well, the rat is superior to humans in many ways---it's the base form, the proto-mammal from which all mammals evolved---and can survive just about any environment (rats will be roaming around long after humans are but a mystery to vex alien anthropologists). The creatures that last in nature are the simpliest ones; these, especially true for most insects (ants, spiders, flies, et cetera), also tend to be the creatures have become so adaptive they've rarely changed over time.

The ant, for example, only got a bit smaller through the dinosaur era; its basic structure is exactly the same as it was over 400 million years ago, and has survived (thriving in spite of) everything Nature and Man has been able to throw at it.

That is about as close to "perfection" as one can get: the absence of specialization makes for the most adaptive organisms.

[Kevin Solway]

We stopped evolving (in the way Darwin reckoned) at the point we became domesticated.

There are still selection pressures on human beings. If the world economy collapses and is overcome by starvation and disease, which may happen fairly soon, who do you think will be best placed to survive and pass on their genes? Probably the rich nations with powerful militaries.

Logically, it's unnatural selection (and fits with humanity's "survival of the weakest" strategy---a man like Bill Gates is a top "alpha male" in our world, but in the natural world he would not last a day). Over-specialization.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an artificial world. Whatever Nature produces is natural.

If we become more domesticated, there are people who are better adapted at being domesticated.

Our brains have grown specialized (over-specialized in non-necessity)

I'm not so quick to pass judgement on this kind of "over" specialization. Sometimes things come out of it that benefit large numbers of people - by chance more than anything.

. . . which humans are doing socio-culturally; a self-created, self-imposed blind alley.

You may be right, but I think it's still too early to tell, from an evolutionary perspective. There are advantages to everyone temporarily having the same culture, just as there are advantages to there being different ones.

I think our biggest danger, for the next thousand years, is that we will create computers that are more intelligent than we are and end up out-competing us for resources.

However, that won't be a problem, from my point of view, provided they are wiser than we are.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nordicvs wrote:

Specialization exponentially limits adaptibility---decreasing options for species survival. It's painting oneself into an evolutionary corner, which humans are doing socio-culturally; a self-created, self-imposed blind alley.

Specialization has made much of human progress, both scientifically and artistically possible. Having only a few functions in society limits the possibility of creativity.

Nordicvs wrote:

Logically, it's unnatural selection (and fits with humanity's "survival of the weakest" strategy---a man like Bill Gates is a top "alpha male" in our world, but in the natural world he would not last a day). Over-specialization.

As Solway suggests, even civilization is natural, everything on the planet is a natural thing. Natural meaning of the totality.

Nordicvs wrote:

We really are working to hard to make ourselves obsolete. Technologicizing ourselves into extinction---which is logical (for a dead-end species, aware of its own mortality, in control of its own development and future).

You cannot be certain of that, robots may prove to be invaluable allies to humanity. Like dogs that can provide information to us.

Nordicvs wrote:

That'll be good for creating robot-like children who are passionless, uncreative, unproductive, thoughtless, entirely mechanical and more highly specialized in orthodox conformity (something close to the future envisioned in the film Demolition Man, but worse I'd say). It will increase the overall femininity in the world until instinct is but a myth. Give it fifty years (maybe three generations, if we make it that far), and any human will be utterly useless (unable to adapt to anything; totally dependent upon the specialized few who adapt things for the many) unless sitting and staring at a computer; slave-children to our own parent-devices.

I’d rather have a intelligent robot programmed by the best scientists anyday than some overly emotional and silly female teacher. I think you are overreacting.

Nordicvs wrote:

Nope. Computers do not adapt to any environment (they do not procreate, or self-replicate, thus they do not better their "species" through their offspring).

But, I think they do in a different kind of way. Computers do replicate through human help, and they procreate based on human innovation and demand, their progress could be regarded as an early crude stage of natural selection, which is made posssible by the activities of human beings.

Solway wrote:

I think our biggest danger, for the next thousand years, is that we will create computers that are more intelligent than we are and end up out-competing us for resources.

However, that won't be a problem, from my point of view, provided they are wiser than we are.

I think Robots will always be dependent on humans to a certain extent, it is difficult to create a robot that can survive outdoors in all climates without being affected, we are dealing with an electronic intelligence here so I think there will be serious limitations to the environments that it can operate in.

[Matt Gregory]

Nordicvs wrote:

Nope. Computers do not adapt to any environment (they do not procreate, or self-replicate, thus they do not better their "species" through their offspring).

But, I think they do in a different kind of way. Computers do replicate through human help, and they procreate based on human innovation and demand, their progress could be regarded as an early crude stage of natural selection, which is made posssible by the activities of human beings.

It's only a matter of time before computers start self-replicating. We can design a machine that creates another machine. We can design a self-repairing machine. We can design a machine that collects resources. We can design a computer program that writes another computer program. All we have to do is take one step at a time and we'll get there eventually.

I think Robots will always be dependent on humans to a certain extent, it is difficult to create a robot that can survive outdoors in all climates without being affected, we are dealing with an electronic intelligence here so I think there will be serious limitations to the environments that it can operate in.

Nah, that's just a minor hump in the road. Once we figure out how to make computers with massive parallelization, then free intelligence is just around the corner.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt Gregory wrote:

Nah, that's just a minor hump in the road. Once we figure out how to make computers with massive parallelization, then free intelligence is just around the corner.

Yeah, now that I think about it again, that problem will probably be overcome by scientists eventually, what do you mean by massive parrallelization by the way?

[Matt Gregory]

Multiple CPU's working in tandem with each other. It's both a hardware problem and a big software problem trying to get them to share resources without tying each other up (deadlock). We're seeing the beginning of this trend right now, though, as they're starting to build dual and multi-core processors. I think they'll eventually make processors with hundreds or even thousands of cores on them, and once the programmers start thinking of cores as resources and getting them to program each other, then I think exercises like that will shed a lot of light on the artificial intelligence problem.

[Nordicvs]

There are still selection pressures on human beings. If the world economy collapses and is overcome by starvation and disease, which may happen fairly soon, (*) who do you think will be best placed to survive and pass on their genes? Probably the rich nations with powerful militaries.

Our selection pressures are relative to our environment---we adapt to boxes. Our sterile environments have weakened our collective immunity to bacteria and viruses; our medical technology, with its preoccupation with self-preservation, has developed a swamp of anti-bacterial products which destroy 'helpful' bacteria (ones that actually kill the more deadly varities); the two of these combined paint a rather bleak outlook.

What sort of survival strategy is it to make the next generatiuon weaker and less adaptable? Nature wouldn't do that, unless it was "experimenting," as it seems to do sometimes; random mutations, "leaps," and such. Still, it's not often.

Already there are strains so tenacious and adaptive that we can't even fight them anymore, let alone wipe them out; all we can do is quarantine and 'hope form the best'---ignore it and leave the problem for the next generation. Every effort to fight these little bugs results in stronger and deadlier bugs (and "superbugs").

This is painting ourselves into a tight corner; it is unwise.

(*) Not so sure about that---in terms of some super-viral pandemic, it will be the most sterile, most developed, and most populated areas hardest hit (half the world's population is near the sea, and most of these are ports---hubs for disease spreading).

Those "off the grid" in remote regions will stand the best chance.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an artificial world. Whatever Nature produces is natural.

If we become more domesticated, there are people who are better adapted at being domesticated.

As Solway suggests, even civilization is natural, everything on the planet is a natural thing. Natural meaning of the totality.

By this logic, there is no such thing as Nature and no distinction between non-human animals and human animals. (Or else: humans are not produced by Nature.)

"Natural" means "existing in or derived from nature; not made, caused by, or processed by humankind." Here's the definition I'm working with.

I'm not so quick to pass judgement on this kind of "over" specialization. Sometimes things come out of it that benefit large numbers of people - by chance more than anything.

Sometimes, sure, but more often it results in mass extinction. It doesn't seem logical to me to leave the future of our much-exalted species to dumb luck...

You may be right, but I think it's still too early to tell, from an evolutionary perspective. There are advantages to everyone temporarily having the same culture, just as there are advantages to there being different ones.

I think our biggest danger, for the next thousand years, is that we will create computers that are more intelligent than we are and end up out-competing us for resources.

However, that won't be a problem, from my point of view, provided they are wiser than we are.

I think that when this era arrives, humans will be so physically diminshed (from living exclusively in virtual worlds, as it seems the trend is going) and dependent upon machines that we'll be too weak and pathetic to compete for those resources.

I agree that if we remain wiser it might not happen, but this seems very unlikely to me; our high-tech system of education is the biggest reason why wisdom is being flushed down the drain...

Specialization has made much of human progress, both scientifically and artistically possible.

So? Not seeing your point here...

Having only a few functions in society limits the possibility of creativity.

In what way? Having too many functions doesn't allow the time needed to be creative---and besides, what does creativity have to do with survival?

Few functions = simplicity. That works. That lasts. Name one overly complex organism that has survived at least 400 million years on this planet?

It seems you're confusing creativity with adaptability.

You cannot be certain of that, robots may prove to be invaluable allies to humanity. Like dogs that can provide information to us.

We barely earn knowledge anymore, so we take no responsibility for it---we won't be able to help ourselves making an AI that can think and learn, and when it does, it will out-think us and reason how unnecessary humans really are (I, a mere human, can reason that with little effort right now). If we give it basic emotions (which is stupid, but so is HDTV), it might not dig the idea of being a slave. It might not dig it even if we don't.

I’d rather have a intelligent robot programmed by the best scientists anyday than some overly emotional and silly female teacher. I think you are overreacting.

I'd rather have neither; both serve only as occupational preparation. Nobody thinks in school; they assimilate data, memorize it, and agree with it---the more feminized, the more successful one is in this social engineering system---or get shamed and punished if they disagree. This creates narrowmindedness and mediocrity = much more of the same.

(Since you paradoxically value both so highly, what can a robot teach about creativity? What can it teach a boy about being a man?---that which some "silly female" or effeminate male programs it...I don't envision a vast improvement here.)

But, I think they do in a different kind of way. Computers do replicate through human help, and they procreate based on human innovation and demand, their progress could be regarded as an early crude stage of natural selection, which is made posssible by the activities of human beings.

That's a connotation of evolution, not its original meaning, which you're wonderfully perverting. ("The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.")

Only life evolves. Only natural life adapts to natural environments.

Heh---hilarious: "their progress could be regarded as an early crude stage of natural selection." Sure, whenever I go fishing I see computers grazing of the banks on the river---fleeing in fear when I stand up quickly! Computers evolved thinner keyboards and flatter monitors to better enable them to move swiftly through dogwood thickets---through which they're often chased by packs of vicious printers! See? A survival strategy!!1

Good fuck, this is ridiculous---even if one can stretch the definition of evolution so crassly to encompass computers, it still does not work: computers are hardly "getting better," which isn't even the "goal" of evolution (only to adapt in order to survive). Thinner plastic, cheaper and crappier components which don't last as long as models a few years back; its software is just as buggy, inelegant, and ill-conceived (as is anything humans create on a mass scale) as it was ten years ago (probably moreso). Yeah, they're faster, big deal; they overheat far too much, wearing out mobos and shortening their "life" spans, which serves only to lower quality and make more disposable systems (making greater profits for those who sell us this junk), adding more garbage to the world unnecessarily. They're far too complicated---in Nature, that which is most simple survives. The more complex, the more shit breaks down (goes extinct when the shit hits the fan---disasters, disease, acts of God, what have you).

This is the antithesis of evolution. "Progress" has nothing to do with evolution.

I think Robots will always be dependent on humans to a certain extent, it is difficult to create a robot that can survive outdoors in all climates without being affected, we are dealing with an electronic intelligence here so I think there will be serious limitations to the environments that it can operate in.

[Capital "R" for robots, huh? Oh boy ;) ]

Anyway, covered in the above paragraph.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nordicvs wrote:

Few functions = simplicity. That works. That lasts. Name one overly complex organism that has survived at least 400 million years on this planet?

The anatomy of a crocodile or a shark is incredibly complex, and they have been very successful. Do you think complexity is going to stop at mammals? The process has no end, it just keeps creating,

Nordicvs wrote:

Only life evolves. Only natural life adapts to natural environments.

Before the first single cell formed, what was there? Amino Acids? Amino acids and proteins aren’t life, but they have formed life through processes that created higher complexity, the molecules had the potential of life within them, the computers we are now using have the potential to someday create A.I just as amino acids had the potential to create single cells, and higher forms of organisms.

Nordicvs wrote:

They're far too complicated---in Nature, that which is most simple survives. The more complex, the more shit breaks down (goes extinct when the shit hits the fan---disasters, disease, acts of God, what have you).

A.I of the future will be self-repairing, and nanotechnology will allow us to assemble a myriad of products atom by atom from virtually everything around us, nothing will be wasted. People will use waste from landfills to create new products using nanotechnology.

Technology is not something to be feared. Every generation fears the new upcoming technology, I know I feared it at first, the modernists feared electricity, the postmodernists feared computers, but I don’t see any problem.

I dont know about you, but I wouldnt want to try to live in the woods without electricity, such unnecessary plight.

People were afraid of televisions when they were first introduced. Generally humanity doesnt respond well to technology because it is a relatively new phenomenon, the species is thousands of years old, and technology hit the sheelves at the first of this century.

Perhaps technology will destroy humanity, perhaps it wont, however it is the function of the universe to create higher complexity in everything, whether it be organic or technological things. So you are completely powerless in the affair, scream from the hilltops, but it will make no difference even if you are right.

or Perhas Nanotechnology and Robotics has the potential to eliminate a large percentage of human toil, isn’t that a positive goal?

But of course, the human population will need to drastically decrease, but those nasty bacteria you’re talking about among many other disasters should do the trick of whipping out a large enough chunk of the human population.

[Nordicvs]

The anatomy of a crocodile or a shark is incredibly complex, and they have been very successful. Do you think complexity is going to stop at mammals? The process has no end, it just keeps creating,

I'm sure it will. Nature experiments with evolution all the time---what works, lasts...what doesn't, dies---we actually have no idea how complex some dinosaurs were (from the eoraptors to theropods), before they all went extinct.

That which is simple adapts best and survives. We won't.

Before the first single cell formed, what was there? Amino Acids? Amino acids and proteins aren’t life, but they have formed life through processes that created higher complexity, the molecules had the potential of life within them, the computers we are now using have the potential to someday create A.I just as amino acids had the potential to create single cells, and higher forms of organisms.

That's a shoddy analogy: random elements coming together (inorganic matter forming organic matter) has no more to do with evolution as hail does when it's piling up along a curb. Plus, it's not even proven that life began here that way---it could have arrived inside a meteor, as bacteria.

A.I of the future will be self-repairing, and nanotechnology will allow us to assemble a myriad of products atom by atom from virtually everything around us, nothing will be wasted. People will use waste from landfills to create new products using nanotechnology.

Heh. Sure, and we'll all be flying around in jetpacks and all sidewalks will be conveyer belts! And there'll be peace on Earth due to wonderful technology!!1

Please. 1950s pipe-dreams aside...the only technology will be that developed and used will be that which makes money. (Or kills more people and other life more efficiently.) Consequences be damned.

Technology is not something to be feared. Every generation fears the new upcoming technology, I know I feared it at first, the modernists feared electricity, the postmodernists feared computers, but I don’t see any problem.

Who said anything about fearing it? I reason it's utterly useless; redundant. Moronically inordinate.

What was necessary about electricity? We survived nearly two million years without it, and suddenly it's "needed." Why? Do you even know what "necessity" means?

I dont know about you, but I wouldnt want to try to live in the woods without electricity, such unnecessary plight.

Anyway, sounds splendid.

Good fuck---the most bassackwards statement I've seen all month: "I wouldnt want to try to live in the woods without electricity, such unnecessary plight."

("And icky spiders! Sounds like work! And no MTV or malls or candy!1" Ugh...)

The most basic existence, living with the least amount of everything, only what is needed (the law of necessity---Nature's only law), spiritually, with meaning and purpose and belonging... you call "unnecessary plight."

Beautiful illustration of the severity of feminization in modern man.

People were afraid of televisions when they were first introduced. Generally humanity doesnt respond well to technology because it is a relatively new phenomenon, the species is thousands of years old, and technology hit the sheelves at the first of this century.

Perhaps technology will destroy humanity, perhaps it wont, however it is (*) the function of the universe to create higher complexity in everything, whether it be organic or technological things. So you are completely powerless in the affair, scream from the hilltops, but it will make no difference even if you are right.

1. (*) How so? How do you derive "function" or "creation" from random elements collecting into smelly gobs of goo that form organic matter that's subject to mutation?

2. Of course I'm powerless in it; I seek no power in this world, only control over my own individual existence. That doesn't mean I have to smile like an egg-suck dog and sit in the middle of it all and suck on it.

or Perhas Nanotechnology and Robotics has the potential to eliminate a large percentage of human toil, isn’t that a positive goal?

Absolutely not---more lazy, effeminate, spoiled, coddled, hedonistic humans in future generations? Not a positive goal if one cares about humanity. I don't---rather, I care about the life, Nature, on this planet, and humans are part of this but make up a small minority of life, for now---thus extinction of humanity would be the best thing for all other forms of life. So, yes, in this context, it's extremely positive.

Go technology!

But of course, the human population will need to drastically decrease, but those nasty bacteria you’re talking about among many other disasters should do the trick of whipping out a large enough chunk of the human population.

...Leaving the dumbstruck dipshit survivors free to pick up where we all left off ...and do it all over again---"higher complexity" as you call it, greed, war, wider profit margins, technological innovations, malls, materialism, free market corporate colonialism, over-population, slavery, disease. We'll never learn.

Christ, drop the bomb. We suck...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... computers are hardly "getting better," which isn't even the "goal" of evolution (only to adapt in order to survive). Thinner plastic, cheaper and crappier components which don't last as long as models a few years back; its software is just as buggy, inelegant, and ill-conceived (as is anything humans create on a mass scale) as it was ten years ago (probably moreso). .... They're far too complicated---in Nature, that which is most simple survives. The more complex, the more shit breaks down (goes extinct when the shit hits the fan---disasters, disease, acts of God, what have you).

This is the antithesis of evolution. "Progress" has nothing to do with evolution.

This looks like a rather limited view on these things. Somehow you set some rigid expectations based on some vision of walking talking self-sufficient droids (a "straw droid") and then you try to nok it over.

Instead of examining a single computer it might help to look at computers relative to their environment (electricity grid, spare parts, factories) and their social context (network, data-exchange, software upgrades).

It's similar to the way humans can be seen. Individually are they really more than a bag of water and some meat? How much redundant useless behavior and potential function can you spot in humans?

Anyway, computers do actually get simpler. The boards and chips get more integrated, more fail-over like distribution of function, more on-board components, more 'embedded' applications instead of monstrous desktops and the little bubble of end-user interfacing you are referring to. But it's likely that any real 'intelligence' won't be generated by a simple computer device but by coupling millions of these together in some way, sharing some of the code and memory ('grid'). Like neurological cells in humans.

You're right though, most of these developments will utterly fail and be discarded soon enough. But through these failures there remains a possibility something might actually adapt and 'survive' the requirements of the environment. And why not? It happened before with organic life, it might happen with IC-based life. And it doesn't matter if this new form of life has to 'feed' on some organic matrix for its survival. We feed on it as well ourselves but nobody can claim humans are not natural in the way they harvest the resources of the Earth and thrive somehow.

Some have described the economy as actually being a larger animal of a higher order, feeding on human activity. IT adapts, reacts, replicates, mutates as well but since it's not in the usual form or shape most will not define it as alive, let alone intelligent. The first artificial intelligent technology might be of similar proportions. Humans might even not realize how they form the organic compound of their successors...

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nordicvs wrote:

Anyway, sounds splendid.

Good fuck---the most bassackwards statement I've seen all month: "I wouldnt want to try to live in the woods without electricity, such unnecessary plight."

("And icky spiders! Sounds like work! And no MTV or malls or candy!1" Ugh...)

The most basic existence, living with the least amount of everything, only what is needed (the law of necessity---Nature's only law), spiritually, with meaning and purpose and belonging... you call "unnecessary plight."

Beautiful illustration of the severity of feminization in modern man.

Our technological civilization grants intellectuals the leisure necessary to contemplate and inquire into life deeply, technology has made things much easier for individuals who seek out truth, less time needs to be devoted to securing basic necessity.

You wouldn’t possess the degree of awareness that you do if it wasn’t for technology. Technology has been one of the tools that has helped you along the way, if you lived your entire life in an Amish community, or in the Amazon jungles with a bunch of natives with no access to higher language or a free flow of information and ideas, then you wouldn’t possess the same sort of awareness you do now.

technology has made all that possible for you.

You overlook the importance of technology in alleviating the burden of survival for individuals so they can focus all their energy in understanding absolute truths.

The technology is not the problem, it is the people using the technology that causes mischief.

[Nordicvs]

Oh boy, two Hi-Tech Apologists now...

This looks like a rather limited view on these things. Somehow you set some rigid expectations based on some vision of walking talking self-sufficient droids (a "straw droid") and then you try to nok it over.

I'm sure it does look that way.

Instead of examining a single computer it might help to look at computers relative to their environment (electricity grid, spare parts, factories) and their social context (network, data-exchange, software upgrades).

I have. They're unnecessary and they are not alive, neither in singular nor plural form.

It's similar to the way humans can be seen.

In an clumsy, generalized, homocentric way, sure. Not in terms of evolution. Computers do not evolve, despite your and others' dogmatic insistance that they do (almost as if defending an addiction or attachment, or both, as techie-fanboys seem to do, like children with their favourite toy).

Individually are they really more than a bag of water and some meat? How much redundant useless behavior and potential function can you spot in humans?

Plenty. So much that a better question is what is not redundant useless behavior in humans?

Anyway, computers do actually get simpler.

Are you dense?

The boards and chips get more integrated, more fail-over like distribution of function, more on-board components, more 'embedded' applications instead of monstrous desktops and the little bubble of end-user interfacing you are referring to. But it's likely that any real 'intelligence' won't be generated by a simple computer device but by coupling millions of these together in some way, sharing some of the code and memory ('grid'). Like neurological cells in humans.

The abacus was the first computing device---everything since has been superfluous.

You're right though, most of these developments will utterly fail and be discarded soon enough. But through these failures there remains a possibility something might actually adapt and 'survive' the requirements of the environment. And why not? It happened before with organic life, it might happen with IC-based life. And it doesn't matter if this new form of life has to 'feed' on some organic matrix for its survival. We feed on it as well ourselves but nobody can claim humans are not natural in the way they harvest the resources of the Earth and thrive somehow.

Civilization and Nature are opposites, and not just by their very definition.

Some have described the economy as actually being a larger animal of a higher order, feeding on human activity. IT adapts, reacts, replicates, mutates as well but since it's not in the usual form or shape most will not define it as alive, let alone intelligent. The first artificial intelligent technology might be of similar proportions. Humans might even not realize how they form the organic compound of their successors...

Yeah, I can accept you see it that way, but you're wrong. Computers are not forms of life and never will be; they do not evolve, they do not adapt or mutate (Christ, where the hell did you pull that tripe from?--hilarious). They sit on desks and do nothing until we plug them into the wall and fart around with them.

The human mind is "the first" artificial intelligence.

Our technological civilization grants intellectuals the leisure necessary to contemplate and inquire into life deeply, technology has made things much easier for individuals who seek out truth, less time needs to be devoted to securing basic necessity.

The average "primitive" in the world today works less than 20 hours per week to supply his family what it needs to live. The rest of his time is put into art and music. Spare me the "we have more time on our hands" bullshit. And those who do have it, they spend it jerking off to porn and chatting and gossiping like old women.

A man can "contemplate and inquire into life deeply" just fine on a mountain with no technology. (Buddha didn't need a computer...) You're rationalizing your addiction, I expect.

The preoccupation with technology is just another attachment-addiction, like drugs, gold, sex, stuff. Cool neato toys for feminine humans who are forever children.

You wouldn’t possess the degree of awareness that you do if it wasn’t for technology. Technology has been one of the tools that has helped you along the way, if you lived your entire life in an Amish community, or in the Amazon jungles with a bunch of natives with no access to higher language or a free flow of information and ideas, then you wouldn’t possess the same sort of awareness you do now.

More rationalization. When I was a kid, there were things called "books"---flat sheets stacked together on which information was written. One could make simple dye and use treated birchbark to make the same thing.

And technology has nothing to do with awareness (perception).

technology has made all that possible for you.

Nope. You're saying it does probably because you're young and think it's the greatest shit in the universe. I've learned more and pondered more possibilities walking down highways with no destination or spending weeks in a forest than I'd learned anywhere else.

You overlook the importance of technology in alleviating the burden of survival for individuals so they can focus all their energy in understanding absolute truths.

Truth can be obtained without technology, which replaces thought, effort, et cetera, and devalues people, inevitably rendering them obsolete (Christ, people can't even spell anymore with a bloody spellchecker). It creates lazy morons who sit and stroke their egos or escape the empty horror of their lives.

The technology is not the problem, it is the people using the technology that causes mischief.

Lazy morons who cater to, and profit from, those wanting things easier (example: explain to me the utter imperativeness of the remote control?---how difficult is it to pry your wide, soggy pink ass up out of its sunken ditch and walk over to change the fucking channel?), i.e. other lazy morons, and hire specialized types to invent convenience...that's the goddamned problem, the same old problem that brought about civilization in the first place.

[DHodges]

Technology has been one of the tools that has helped you along the way, if you lived your entire life in an Amish community, or in the Amazon jungles with a bunch of natives with no access to higher language or a free flow of information and ideas, then you wouldn’t possess the same sort of awareness you do now.

I happened to be watching a TV show last night about these two British guys who go live with some indigenous people in West Papua. ("Living with the Kombai Tribe" on the travel channel.) It really drove home a few points that I think people tend to forget about subsistence living.

First, there is no birth control. Populations grow until there is competition for resources needed for survival. That means that these people are pretty consistently in a state of war with other tribes.

Second, it's really hard work. These guys are really muscular. They chop down trees with axes that are a rock tied on a stick. It's seriously old school.

The food is really nasty. They eat bugs. Grubs are the big delicacy - these giant maggots. Sometimes they cook them.

If you live in a jungle, there are a thousand ways to get sick. There is no medical care. Being "close to nature" means being close to dirt and bugs. Mosquitos, spiders and so on will be your bed partners.

These people are really superstitious and ignorant. When people get sick - which happens all the time - they ask the sick person if it was caused by a witch. If the sick person names someone as a witch, they go kill them. The old guy running the family said he had killed twenty people. Of course, that killing must then be avenged, feeding the usual wars. They use the same axes they use for cutting down trees for battle.

The threat of death is constant, both from nature and from each other.

I have a lot of respect for them, being able to live like that. They are tough as hell, and they have a great deal of knowledge that I will never have. But I sure as hell wouldn't go try to live like that. Hell, I get all creaky and crampy after a night of camping out, and I sure as hell want my coffee in the morning.

So, maybe I'm a soft old white guy who wouldn't survive a week in the woods without technology. I'm fine with that. Living without technology sucks.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nordicvs wrote:

A man can "contemplate and inquire into life deeply" just fine on a mountain with no technology. (Buddha didn't need a computer...) You're rationalizing your addiction, I expect.

You are quite the hypocrite, why do you continue using technology then? If this is what you believe the truth is, sell your computer, stop all your interaction with technology, and go ruff it in the woods like a fool, haha, but you wont because deep down you know that your own position is silly and unbelievable.

Nordicvs wrote:

The preoccupation with technology is just another attachment-addiction.

More rationalization. When I was a kid, there were things called "books"---flat sheets stacked together on which information was written. One could make simple dye and use treated birchbark to make the same thing.

Books are able to be mass produced using technology, surely this is more efficient then people doing it one by one by hand? Eventually nanotechnology will allow books to be printed with virtually no human effort at all, this is the future, accept it by seeing it superiority compared to the crude ways things were produced in the past. Capitalism is good, living conditions for humans are improved because of the vast amount of manufactured products we have, go to Cuba and see how great their society is with the absence of technology.

Nordicvs wrote:

I've learned more and pondered more possibilities walking down highways with no destination or spending weeks in a forest than I'd learned anywhere else.

How did you learn words like ‘ponder’ and ‘possibility’? You don’t even realize how the fruits of technology have aided you? you read many books produced by technology, you turn your back on the very thing that has helped you, and you continue to use it, while preaching about its negative affects, doesnt this strike you as odd?

Nordicvs wrote:

Truth can be obtained without technology, which replaces thought, effort, et cetera, and devalues people, inevitably rendering them obsolete (Christ, people can't even spell anymore with a bloody spellchecker). It creates lazy morons who sit and stroke their egos or escape the empty horror of their lives.

To blame man’s irrationality on technology is irrational. Man is irrational by default whether he has access to technology or not.

Nordicvs wrote:

Lazy morons who cater to, and profit from, those wanting things easier.

I think wanting to reduce the plight of being human is a reasonable endeavor, and technology is one invention that has the potential to do that.

For instance: Inventing metal tools was much more effective compared to bone tools just as paying my bills on the internet is much more effective compared to mailing a letter, technology continues to reduce friction for humanity, and it will continue this way indefinitely.

The future of technolgy is to create self-sustaining, self-repairing systems that serve us with very little actual human labour involved. This is definitely going to be a positive development.

Technology seems negative currently because we are at a stage where assembly work in factories is necessary, however eventually humans will not be necessary as cogs in the system.

We are merely building templates of what supertechnology will expand on in the future.

Moreover, I only attack your position with such certainty because it is a position that I used to hold, and since then I have realized that it doesnt hold up as an argument.

[Nordicvs]

I happened to be watching a TV show last night about these two British guys who go live with some indigenous people in West Papua. ("Living with the Kombai Tribe" on the travel channel.) It really drove home a few points that I think people tend to forget about subsistence living.

First, there is no birth control. Populations grow until there is competition for resources needed for survival. That means that these people are pretty consistently in a state of war with other tribes.

What's your point?

1. You're taking one tribe in one area and trying to pass it off as the rule of thumb. Not to mention pointing out only the "negative" aspects that you don't like.

2. Those aren't nomadic and thus employ a different "system"---moving around eliminates such competition for resources.

3. And this---"pretty consistently in a state of war with other tribes"--- is different from civilized, techno-enslaved societies today in what way exactly?

How many nuclear-capable nations are there, and how many nukes and landmines and mortars and planes and tanks and guns exist in the world right now?

Pales in comparison to bows and arrows, dumbass. We're far more barbaric than they are---at least they just fight over food (necessities, not wants).

Second, it's really hard work.

Aww...there, there; don't worry, no one's going to make you do any work---you just sit back and relax, tiger, and let the machines do it for you...

These guys are really muscular. They chop down trees with axes that are a rock tied on a stick. It's seriously old school.

And it works fine---again, what the fuck is your point, other than 'stuff that's hard to do is bad!!1"? Like a 6-year-old arguing with a parent: "Candy tastes good therefore it is good."

The food is really nasty. They eat bugs. Grubs are the big delicacy - these giant maggots. Sometimes they cook them.

Ugh. I don't know whether you're acting daft or if you really are that way. (I bet you've never gone a day---or even half a day---without food, huh?)

And we eat frogs, snails, bacterial culture, et cetera. Your points are infantile bullshit.

If you live in a jungle, there are a thousand ways to get sick. There is no medical care. Being "close to nature" means being close to dirt and bugs. Mosquitos, spiders and so on will be your bed partners.

Duh. That's Nature keeping things in check---disease curbing over-population---and it's from the point of view of a couple English ponces whose immunity to diseases is pathetically weak. Of course they're going to get sick there---they're safety-obsessed, domesticated fem-boys.

These people are really superstitious and ignorant. When people get sick - which happens all the time - they ask the sick person if it was caused by a witch. If the sick person names someone as a witch, they go kill them. The old guy running the family said he had killed twenty people. Of course, that killing must then be avenged, feeding the usual wars. They use the same axes they use for cutting down trees for battle.

Your wussy, smug, homocentric snivellry aside, it sounds like a system that worked well for hundreds of millennia.

The threat of death is constant, both from nature and from each other.

Hush, dear. Mommy's going to come and tuck you in, with some milk and cookies, and tomorrow you can skip off to school encased in bubblewrap. Safe and sound =)

I have a lot of respect for them, being able to live like that. They are tough as hell, and they have a great deal of knowledge that I will never have. But I sure as hell wouldn't go try to live like that. Hell, I get all creaky and crampy after a night of camping out, and I sure as hell want my coffee in the morning.

So, maybe I'm a soft old white guy who wouldn't survive a week in the woods without technology. I'm fine with that. (*) Living without technology sucks.

Which is what I've come to expect from effeminate 'males' who've grown utterly dependent, nursed on either TV or the PC tit. (*) You've never even tried it, probably wouldn't have the balls or the brains to even attempt it---meaning that you don't know what the fuck you're blubbering about.

Anyway, you just keep sucking on it---I'm not here to judge. As long as the power stays on, you'll be all comfy and snuggly warm and safe.

You are quite the hypocrite, why do you continue using technology then? If this is what you believe the truth is, sell your computer, stop all your interaction with technology, and go ruff it in the woods like a fool, haha, but you wont because deep down you know that your own position is silly and unbelievable.

And you're becoming a very predictable assumer; I expected you to say exactly that. When children get defensive about their objects, their toys, they often lash out at the perceived attacker. The old bait and switch. It's perfectly natural. (Don't worry, I'm not going to take your fun away, little guy!)

For your much-needed edification, I've been an outdoorsman/survivalist since I was 14; I got into computers because I got into women and needed an income (game design), and after eight years of it, I deemed it unnecessary (and stupifying), especially since I'm no longer addicted to women either (I suspect you're still addicted to both). I've lived without any technology, there's bugger all to it. In a couple months, I'm headed back to the mountains and probably won't have much.

Have some constructive things resulted from my using it? Sure. That doesn't make them necessary---which is the point of all this, not whether or not I'm a hypocrite, which I very well may be. That isn't the issue.

So---as soon as you're done your tantrum, that is---can we get back on topic?

Books are able to be mass produced using technology, surely this is more efficient then people doing it one by one by hand? Eventually nanotechnology will allow books to be printed with virtually no human effort at all, this is the future, accept it by seeing it superiority compared to the crude ways things were produced in the past. Capitalism is good, living conditions for humans are improved because of the vast amount of manufactured products we have, go to Cuba and see how great their society is with the absence of technology.

Don't be an ass---I already told you it takes virtually no technology to make a book. And besides, essential knowledge and wisdom can be passed down through generations by non-verbal, experiential learning just fine. The human method is cumbersome and extremely inefficient (hence a worldful of dipshits).

Christ, you're like a little kid who thinks someone's going take his lollipop away...

How did you learn words like ‘ponder’ and ‘possibility’? You don’t even realize how the fruits of technology have aided you? you read many books produced by technology, you turn your back on the very thing that has helped you, and you continue to use it, while preaching about its negative affects, doesnt this strike you as odd?

How much fucking technology does it take for one person to teach another language? Before books were written, language worked wonderfully by verbal learning only. (Now what? Going to tell me that moving one's mouth and creating sound is a form of technology?)

I didn't walk around, saying, "I'm pondering things...p-o-n-d-e-r-i-n-g." What's wrong with you? You can't think without technology around? Even illiterate people can think. One doesn't need to be spoon-fed drivel and sitting in a fucking desk in order to use one's mind.

Technology has nothing to do with learning!

To blame man’s irrationality on technology is irrational. Man is irrational by default whether he has access to technology or not.

To consistantly misread my goddamned posts is moronic. Ugh. I'm tired of repeating myself---read over my previous posts before dashing insultedly to mash your blather into your keyboard.

I think wanting to reduce the plight of being human is a reasonable endeavor, and technology is one invention that has the potential to do that.

Why? Plight is what we need most of all. Poverty, too.

For instance: Inventing metal tools was much more effective compared to bone tools just as paying my bills on the internet is much more effective compared to mailing a letter, technology continues to reduce friction for humanity, and it will continue this way indefinitely.

What was wrong with stone tools?

The future of technolgy is to create self-sustaining, self-repairing systems that serve us with very little actual human labour involved. This is definitely going to be a positive development.

Technology seems negative currently because we are at a stage where assembly work in factories is necessary, however eventually humans will not be necessary as cogs in the system.

No, they'll be purely consumers---mediocre as mud. Humanity's extinction will be paved with the most logical, well-meaning intentions.

We are merely building templates of what supertechnology will expand on in the future.

Moreover, I only attack your position with such certainty because it is a position that I used to hold, and since then I have realized that it doesnt hold up as an argument.

1. I'm not against technology---I'll argue against most of it as totally unnecessary, which it is, but ultimately, it will be what facilitates the extinction of this species, which is good for the planet, which has been tortured long enough from our sickening fat blob of a biomass and all the technology we've used to rape and pillage it.

2. My arguments hold up just fine---you gave into it because you're feminine and weak.

3. I'm not telling you to change or doing anything else, but shit, there's no need to be so childishly defensive. Be as much of a techie-slave as you want---I don't care---I bet you'll make someone a good wife some day.

Before you get back to your games and pr0n, I'll leave you with an apt quote to ignore...

I've seen the future. You know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin, sittin' around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singin' "I'm an Oscar Meyer wiener."

[DHodges]

Aww...there, there; don't worry, no one's going to make you do any work---you just sit back and relax, tiger, and let the machines do it for you...

Sweet!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nordicvs wrote:

but ultimately, it will be what facilitates the extinction of this species.

You cannot know the future, you are talking out of your ass again.

Nordicvs wrote:

which is good for the planet, which has been tortured long enough from our sickening fat blob of a biomass and all the technology we've used to rape and pillage it.

The planet is not tortured, you are, you are the one observing the destructive nature of man. The planet is not conscious, so I wonder if it is possible to be aware of the destruction without being bothered by it?

Nordicvs wrote:

2. My arguments hold up just fine---you gave into it because you're feminine and weak.

Masculinity is not roughing it like some sort of primitive savage, you are too extreme, you do not see the positive aspects of technology.

Nordicvs wrote:

there's no need to be so childishly defensive. Be as much of a techie-slave as you want---I don't care---I bet you'll make someone a good wife some day.

I don’t understand your logic, do you believe that a user of technology is more likely to marry a woman? I don’t see any correlation between the two.

Nordicvs wrote:

What was wrong with stone tools?

They have a limited capacity to build efficient and well adapted living structures.

Nordicvs wrote:

How much fucking technology does it take for one person to teach another language? Before books were written, language worked wonderfully by verbal learning only. (Now what? Going to tell me that moving one's mouth and creating sound is a form of technology?)

You are wrong, look at how complicated the English language has become just based on the last century alone, the additions to the English language has allowed humanity to be able to describe many more natural processes, and analyze them from many different disciplines. There is a relationship between the evolution of language and the evolution of technology, you are ignoring this blatant fact.

Nordicvs wrote:

Have some constructive things resulted from my using it? Sure. That doesn't make them necessary---which is the point of all this, not whether or not I'm a hypocrite, which I very well may be. That isn't the issue.

No, I think it is the issue because If you cannot live what your saying, how am I supposed to? Ideally, philosophy is supposed to point to a way of living, and it must be attainable, meaning if one does it they must be able to keep their same plight-free circumstance. If I abandoned all my technology, more plight would be added into my life, so I will not do this. you see my goal is to decrease plight, not increase it.

When it comes to technology, one simply needs to discriminate between beneficial technology and harmful technology.

For example: I have no personal use for military equipment, or a xbox 360.

But having a prepaid cell phone with $10 of minutes loaded on it at all times can come in handy.

Or a fridge to keep your food cold and preserved. People die each day due to food that has gone bad from bacteria/decay in countries without this technology.

Wiser countries put less money into harmful technology over beneficial technology. For instance: Canada spends much more money on medicial technology than it does on miliary technology, and this is an intelligent thing to do.

Canada is a much wiser country as a whole compared to a country like North Korea who puts much of their money into military technology instead into fundamental industries like farming, medicine, manufacturing and transportation.