16 Jan 2009, 5:39 am
12 Mar 2009, 9:41 am
azulene wrote:
You would have an instant portion of casualties as you removed things like pace-makers, artificial heart valves and transplanted organs. A portion of your test population would be rendered crippled or seriously at risk of death as drugs like ventolin and synthetic insulin would not be available. Glasses and hearing aids and so forth would be removed. Tooth fillings would also be removed.
The problem with this part of your post is that all the ailments you list are actually *caused* by a technological society. Animals in the wild do not get tooth decay, stress related illness, heart disease etc etc. There is evidence that it is the same for humans. Even in recent times, tooth decay, heart disease and cancer have been noted as virtually unknown in 'primitive' societies.
So technology gives us back a portion of the good physical health it denies us in the first place. Does it give us *any* of our psychological health bach, though?
azulene wrote:
I am talking about what makes humans human. I am saying science and technology do a darn good job at preventing us not only from dieing, but functioning as human beings in a society.
Science takes care of people far, far, far better than most people take care of each other.
Science takes care of people far, far, far better than most people take care of each other.
Not doing a very good job of taking care of the planet as a whole, though, is it?
Humans are responsible for more destruction and extinctions than any other species. So far 'nature red in tooth and claw' unfettered by science and religion has not resulted in a bleak wilderness. Quite the opposite, it has produced a HUGE diversity of species.
The species that is the single biggest threat to this diversity of life is us.
With every species we destroy, every field we build malls on, every river we pollute, all the time we are getting unhealthier mentally and physically. And we don't see the connection! I don't believe we are we born so 'naturally ill' that science, technology and 'the machine that goes ping' are fundamental to our existence. We destroy our environment - we destroy ourselves - and so on in a feedback loop.
No other species in it's natural environment needs science and technology to prevent it embarking on mass killing spree genocide of the weak. The suggestion that as humans we do need it may well be true, but indicative of flaws in our way of living, not something to be proud of.
We will never be able to eliminate all of the other species on the planet. If we continue along the path we're now on, we will have eliminated ourselves long before this.
12 Mar 2009, 10:06 am
12 Mar 2009, 10:49 am
12 Mar 2009, 11:18 am
Relicanth7
Veteran
Joined: 30 Sep 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,896
Location: 'Murika... (Insert explicit word here) yeah!
12 Mar 2009, 11:28 am
azulene wrote:
I am a scientist from my first atom to my last, so here is what I think:
Without science and technology humans would not exist.
Observing nature, and realizing that sharp rocks could be put to use, apes took the first step towards becoming humans. This was the first piece of science. The sparks that were emitted by lapping stones could be used to make fire, to cook beasts that could only be willfully killed and consumed with those sharpened rocks. Such a food supply gave more time to improve associated technology. Fur could be stripped from beasts to make clothes so new environments could be survived and explored. The surviving, evolving mind required to generate and apply such realizations was needed to make language. Language allowed skills to be passed on and improved. Everything we know, and the very fact we know anything comes from this. Science and technology made us, not the other way around. We would still be hairy animals crawling around on our knuckles without science. The greatest achievement of humans was not splitting atoms or going to the moon, it was coming to earth by splitting rocks!
The following is designed to illustrate the reliance of modern humans and society on science technology rather than some very sick real life experiment. Imagine (thought experiment only) you went to a modern first world city and took 100 people at random for a de-sciencing experiment. It would start by removing all pieces of technology from their bodies and progress to de-sciencing the environment which contained them. You would have an instant portion of casualties as you removed things like pace-makers, artificial heart valves and transplanted organs. A portion of your test population would be rendered crippled or seriously at risk of death as drugs like ventolin and synthetic insulin would not be available. Glasses and hearing aids and so forth would be removed. Tooth fillings would also be removed. Then the surviving population would have their clothes removed and be placed in an otherwise inhabitable area theoretically capable of supporting humans, where the closest piece of existing technology was 1000km away. The theoretical test subjects would be allowed to make their own new technology using what they could find in nature. In the first few days there would be many more "passive" casualties as the "weakest" died of exposure and lack of the medicines.
The thought experiment thus far has been focussed on the casualties resulting from the direct consequences of de-sciencing. Having removed science completely, what would be left of the people? How human would they be? Are you familiar with William Golding's "Lord of the Flies"? Let's face it, people would start murdering each other in no time. The voice of reason would be the first thing to go. The beast within would awake.
I am talking about what makes humans human. I am saying science and technology do a darn good job at preventing us not only from dieing, but functioning as human beings in a society.
Science takes care of people far, far, far better than most people take care of each other.
The notion of "human nature" is extremely confined. Although one tiny aspect, for example, of what is misconstrued to be "human nature", is to force social conformity and destroy those who do not comply. This behavior is prevalent in almost all social animals starting at ants and bees. Why do ants and bees have human nature, unless this nature is in fact not human?
People who excuse what is really bestial behavior by saying "it's human nature, you can't change it" are wrong wrong wrong. Simply by believing the notion it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. "Human nature" is not human to start with, and it is unnatural for us to be non-human. If science changed us from being apes on the outside (now that is a tough one to change!), it can, and has done the same from within. Even if people don't recognize it. Even if they are unaware of it, or think they can reject it, it still does its job.
So I am an Aspie scientist. Although I am clearly on the wrong planet I consider myself a human being. A human being questioning what it means to be human, yet not belonging amongst them...
Without science and technology humans would not exist.
Observing nature, and realizing that sharp rocks could be put to use, apes took the first step towards becoming humans. This was the first piece of science. The sparks that were emitted by lapping stones could be used to make fire, to cook beasts that could only be willfully killed and consumed with those sharpened rocks. Such a food supply gave more time to improve associated technology. Fur could be stripped from beasts to make clothes so new environments could be survived and explored. The surviving, evolving mind required to generate and apply such realizations was needed to make language. Language allowed skills to be passed on and improved. Everything we know, and the very fact we know anything comes from this. Science and technology made us, not the other way around. We would still be hairy animals crawling around on our knuckles without science. The greatest achievement of humans was not splitting atoms or going to the moon, it was coming to earth by splitting rocks!
The following is designed to illustrate the reliance of modern humans and society on science technology rather than some very sick real life experiment. Imagine (thought experiment only) you went to a modern first world city and took 100 people at random for a de-sciencing experiment. It would start by removing all pieces of technology from their bodies and progress to de-sciencing the environment which contained them. You would have an instant portion of casualties as you removed things like pace-makers, artificial heart valves and transplanted organs. A portion of your test population would be rendered crippled or seriously at risk of death as drugs like ventolin and synthetic insulin would not be available. Glasses and hearing aids and so forth would be removed. Tooth fillings would also be removed. Then the surviving population would have their clothes removed and be placed in an otherwise inhabitable area theoretically capable of supporting humans, where the closest piece of existing technology was 1000km away. The theoretical test subjects would be allowed to make their own new technology using what they could find in nature. In the first few days there would be many more "passive" casualties as the "weakest" died of exposure and lack of the medicines.
The thought experiment thus far has been focussed on the casualties resulting from the direct consequences of de-sciencing. Having removed science completely, what would be left of the people? How human would they be? Are you familiar with William Golding's "Lord of the Flies"? Let's face it, people would start murdering each other in no time. The voice of reason would be the first thing to go. The beast within would awake.
I am talking about what makes humans human. I am saying science and technology do a darn good job at preventing us not only from dieing, but functioning as human beings in a society.
Science takes care of people far, far, far better than most people take care of each other.
The notion of "human nature" is extremely confined. Although one tiny aspect, for example, of what is misconstrued to be "human nature", is to force social conformity and destroy those who do not comply. This behavior is prevalent in almost all social animals starting at ants and bees. Why do ants and bees have human nature, unless this nature is in fact not human?
People who excuse what is really bestial behavior by saying "it's human nature, you can't change it" are wrong wrong wrong. Simply by believing the notion it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. "Human nature" is not human to start with, and it is unnatural for us to be non-human. If science changed us from being apes on the outside (now that is a tough one to change!), it can, and has done the same from within. Even if people don't recognize it. Even if they are unaware of it, or think they can reject it, it still does its job.
So I am an Aspie scientist. Although I am clearly on the wrong planet I consider myself a human being. A human being questioning what it means to be human, yet not belonging amongst them...
Not entierly ture all science has realy done is helped us in our survival...
But now you gotta woner are we any better off then we were back like in the 10,000BC when there was practicly no science... they had spears yeah... But now we have Guns, Chemical weapons, adv explosives, airplanes, tanks, warships, nuclear weapons... so the fact is its just a matter of oppinion
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
12 Mar 2009, 11:36 am
12 Mar 2009, 11:38 am
12 Mar 2009, 2:03 pm
12 Mar 2009, 4:40 pm
Social_Fantom
Veteran
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,907
Location: Trapped outside of the space time continuum
12 Mar 2009, 4:52 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
12 Mar 2009, 5:32 pm
12 Mar 2009, 6:32 pm
12 Mar 2009, 6:40 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
12 Mar 2009, 6:48 pm
Grays are the smartest birds.
Dolphins are the smartest whale.
Cats are the baddest mammal.
And velociraptors somehow learned how to fly and now live in the Delta Quadrant.
.
.
.
12 Mar 2009, 6:52 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Grays are the smartest birds.
Dolphins are the smartest whale.
Cats are the baddest mammal.
And velociraptors somehow learned how to fly and now live in the Delta Quadrant.
.
.
.
Dolphins are the smartest whale.
Cats are the baddest mammal.
And velociraptors somehow learned how to fly and now live in the Delta Quadrant.
.
.
.
Cats are not bad. They are just themselves. I have often wondered what it would have been like if felines evolved as the most advanced and intelligent mammal.
ruveyn
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Males, Females, Bears, Humans |
31 Oct 2024, 1:12 pm |
| Humans Glow In The Dark, It's Just Too Weak For Our Eyes To |
09 Jan 2025, 5:49 pm |
