Our success is killing us

[coberst]

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?

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]

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?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is tough because putting technology on hold would cause much suffering. I think we are already pot committed to technology and we are banking on the fact that we will one day be smart enough to undo, or at least stop, what we are doing to the environment now. It is possible that that will never happen though.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Our success is killing us


[/ QUOTE ]

Life expectancy chart. Our success seems to be doing pretty well keeping us alive in fact.



Source: Adapted from Oeppen J, Vaupel JW. Broken Limits to Life Expectancy. Science. 2002;296;1029-1031.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Life expectancy chart. Our success seems to be doing pretty well keeping us alive in fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep! Women are even doing better than men. Those stats must be proving that a lower earning is better for you. I'd say that by reducing the average US earnings all USA citizens will even live longer! [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] C'mon globalization!

[tame_deuces]

That women live longer than men is (afaik) a simple result of biology.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
That women live longer than men is (afaik) a simple result of biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

And not the fact that there is more than 10 times (a lot more, varying from country to country) the amount of dollars (or whatever currency) spent on females, gender specific diseases research, than males gender specific diseases reserach?

[tame_deuces]

Biology is NOT my strong suit, I forgot there are also cultural reasons (men have a tendency to riskier lives).

But as have understood it men have slightly worse immune systems, less able to process fat amongst other things.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished.

In order to even begin to answer you, I need you to clarify the premise.

a) Define "the aims of technology."
b) Show us when and where they were deemed to have been achieved.
c) Explain how, in your opinion, the above has "fatally" dimished our chances for survival.

(I'm not even sure if *fatally* can be used to modify *diminish*, but that's another issue)

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That women live longer than men is (afaik) a simple result of biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

And not the fact that there is more than 10 times (a lot more, varying from country to country) the amount of dollars (or whatever currency) spent on females, gender specific diseases research, than males gender specific diseases reserach?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well everyone knows that women have more complicated plumbing than men. Look at it as an investment in future generations [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[coberst]

The aims of technology vary. In the case noted regarding the extension of longevity in men and women the aim of much of technology is to cure our ills with the resulting increase is noted in increased longevity. Technology is blind and the results can vary widely.

Is increasing human longevity a good or is it a bad. Certainly most people want to live longer so most people consider it to be a good. What might be the bad aspects of an ever increasing human longevity?

1) Overpopulation
2) Lingering death
3) Human health resources directed toward the aged rather than the children
4) The lack of financial resources in old age leading to lack of dignity in old age
5) Recognition by the aged of their burden to their loved ones
6) How do we handle increasing longevity when old folks do not die thus making room for new people?
7) Will this lead to a war between the generations?