Advancements in technology...will it lead to our demise?

What about these Cylons?

 

For much of history the elevation of the quality of life for a human depends on how much he could exploit other humans'; energy, slaves, immigrant serfs, cannon fodder soldiers, Chinese factory workers etc. Technological innovation changes this equation to elevate the quality of life for every economic tier but renders multiple propagation redundant. We are seeing the more technologically advanced societies actually reducing their populations.

More Robots = Less people

eventually .... if we make it

 

Exactly, technology allows a greater living standard for more people. No way we could support billions of people on earth without it.

Presumably, with education and modernization for everyone, growth rates will stabilize and the population over time would shrink to a more manageable number.

 

The human mind is hardwired for problem solving. There is a great reward for creation, innovation and accomplishment. Admittedly I have never had to but I don't understand how a human being can get up every day and go spend 8 or 10 hours doing repetitious mindless work.

 

Not if we also give everyone access to birth control. The most developed countries have the lowest birth rates.

 

In less developed nations, having lots of children is the only social security and, they provide low cost domestic labor.

 

In developed nations, they have the next best alternative: immigrants.

 

In order, no and yes.

 

its basically all or nothing, we started this process when we came out the forest, we're either hunter gathers, or we depend on technology.

 

Advancements in technology might lead to the demise of the oldest profession in the world.

Finally, Sex Robots Are Here!

 

I assume it's already been mentioned but in addition to the human dependency aspect, there is the destructive nature of certain technologies, e.g., nuclear weapons.

At what point does the potential for destruction of some of these technologies that are in the hands of imperfect and emotional human beings outweigh the benefits? Have we already reached that point?

Sure, we're living longer, healthier, more comfortable lives but is even all that worth it given the potential for mass destruction? Who knows what kind of damage weapons will be able to inflict 500 years from now?

I suppose these discussions are fairly irrelevant since technological advancement is an inevitability and there is no way to reverse course.

 

I know who will survive. Those people that live in the hills of Afghanistan. Those people can survive just about anything.

 

We're already passed that point. I doubt dynamite, firearms and the steam engine benefited the Native Americans much. That was intentional. Now we're at a point where our individual actions collectively impact the world on a greater scale.

I guess our hope is surviving "near misses" and having the memory to realize how easy it is for us kill each other with the comfortable tools we have with every new year.

 

I don't think we've reach that point. IMO, that point comes when we have a bio weapon that would cause a pandemic with a high mortality rate. Or if global warming really does melt the polar ice caps and destroy half the land mass.

Even Nuclear bombs, while destructive, doesn't really impact society as a whole unless US and Russia both go berserk.

Whether it's "worth it" is irrelevant IMO. The problem is that the human race isn't growing as a whole. But rather countries, people competing against each other. So if you're not spending time and effort improving your technology, someone else will do so and gain power over you.

Theoretically speaking, if there is world peace, then I suppose these discussions can be relevant. But from a practical standpoint, I'd imagine NO too.

 

---Jared Diamond

 

It took Dow Chemical's blessing of CFC reduction in order for it to be banned. It also helped that they just rolled out the more costly and safer alternative to sell.

Altruism for a price.

 

Rhad's Jared Diamond quote raises a good point. Its not just weapon techonology that may destroy us but many other technologies may do so already based on harmful affects to the environment and our biology. Another thing to consider is that technology feeds technology and the more technology we have the more technical infrastructure we need to support it.

For example the direct benefit we get from automobiles is transportation but we have a whole infrastructure with all sorts of environmental affects just to support the automobile. So we get all sorts of side effects from the obtaininng, refinining and use of the fuel to run the cars, the material to make the cars and the roads to drive on. So for most of us the only technology we directly interact with is the car there are a whole host of other environmental problems created just to make it so we have and can use cars conveniently.

 

An ok book, but is a bit too hokey.

 

no.. the dying sun will destroy us first