Our success is killing us
The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.
McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.
The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.
In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war. Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.
The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.
We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.
What do you think about this serious matter?
Our success is killing us
-
Tater Tazz
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:25 am
Our success is killing us
coberst;717241 wrote: Our success is killing us
The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.
McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.
The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.
In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war. Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.
The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.
We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.
What do you think about this serious matter?
Touchy subject. I think I have mixed feelings on it. I have reasons for it, and reasons against it.
The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.
McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.
The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.
In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war. Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.
The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.
We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.
What do you think about this serious matter?
Touchy subject. I think I have mixed feelings on it. I have reasons for it, and reasons against it.
Our success is killing us
coberst;717241 wrote: Our success is killing us
The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.
McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.
The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.
In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war. Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.
The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.
We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.
What do you think about this serious matter?
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, someone somewhere will carry out the research and what the US decides to do or not do in the field is actually irrelevant to the rest of the world which will do it's own thing anyway. The genie is out the bottle. Like all technology it will be used for good and for ill depending on the disposition of the possessor of the technology. What GM crops and all the concomitant control over farming can do to mankind if agribusiness gets free rein is a lot more worrying.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article ... 23,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm
EU to fund embryo cell research
The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.
McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.
The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.
In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war. Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.
The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.
We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.
What do you think about this serious matter?
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, someone somewhere will carry out the research and what the US decides to do or not do in the field is actually irrelevant to the rest of the world which will do it's own thing anyway. The genie is out the bottle. Like all technology it will be used for good and for ill depending on the disposition of the possessor of the technology. What GM crops and all the concomitant control over farming can do to mankind if agribusiness gets free rein is a lot more worrying.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article ... 23,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm
EU to fund embryo cell research
Our success is killing us
gmc
Most research in these modern times require great instruments and great expense and generally require much agreement and thus can be easily controlled if the general will exists.
Most research in these modern times require great instruments and great expense and generally require much agreement and thus can be easily controlled if the general will exists.
Our success is killing us
coberst;717387 wrote: gmc
Most research in these modern times require great instruments and great expense and generally require much agreement and thus can be easily controlled if the general will exists.
Not bio research all you need is a lab and the know how. If it's worthwhile someone will do it secretly or people will do it out of curiosity. Luckily islamic terrorists and the like haven't thought of putting anything in the water supply-they don't actually have to just think of the panic at just a hint of anything like that.
The general will doesn't exist. The US can go it's own way as will he rest of the world. What the US decides to do is largely irrelevant so far as this kind of research is concerned. If they don't pursue it then other countries will. The religious argument doesn't really feature that much outside the US.
If you want to worry about research that impacts on your daily life start worrying about what you are eating and what is in and on the crops and animals. US beef imports are banned in several countries throughout the world. Don't you wonder why? Same with some of your food crops. It's not anti US policy there are good reasons for concern.
Most research in these modern times require great instruments and great expense and generally require much agreement and thus can be easily controlled if the general will exists.
Not bio research all you need is a lab and the know how. If it's worthwhile someone will do it secretly or people will do it out of curiosity. Luckily islamic terrorists and the like haven't thought of putting anything in the water supply-they don't actually have to just think of the panic at just a hint of anything like that.
The general will doesn't exist. The US can go it's own way as will he rest of the world. What the US decides to do is largely irrelevant so far as this kind of research is concerned. If they don't pursue it then other countries will. The religious argument doesn't really feature that much outside the US.
If you want to worry about research that impacts on your daily life start worrying about what you are eating and what is in and on the crops and animals. US beef imports are banned in several countries throughout the world. Don't you wonder why? Same with some of your food crops. It's not anti US policy there are good reasons for concern.
Our success is killing us
It is hard to find the balance, if something is discovered that is an immediate benefit to us, we embrace it. Bit how far does it go before we cross a line. Check out the report on the Super Mouse.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/ ... 121157.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/ ... 121157.ece