Is technology falling apart?

[Ahanu]

When technology falls apart, as it seems to be hell-bent on doing, who's going to pick up the pieces?

-Thomas

Thomas has brought to my awareness startling news: technology is falling apart. For those who have not recognized this, just know it's "a mattter of reading the signs," as Thomas would say.

I'm interested in understanding these signs, and since these signs are an obvious allusion to the end, I thought it would be appropriate to post in the "Belief and Spirituality" forum.

In Robert Wright's book Nonzero, the author's main thesis states the direction of history is largely influenced by non-zero-sum games. As technology increases, more non-zero-sum games are played.

For those not familiar with non-zero-sum games, here is a simple analogy Wright uses during his own presentations: in a tennis match placing player against player, one can either win or lose (meaning a zero-sum game); however, assume a competitor makes an alliance with his enemy, on the opposite side of the net, and they start playing on the same team, in which the two players will have a win-win result or a lose-lose result (meaning a non-zero-sum game). New technologies that increase non-zero-sum games can range from a Shoshone rabbit net, writing, the printing press, and the Internet. Each increases the likelihood self-interest between players will become intertwined, and, therefore, play on the same team, so it is no wonder Wright is quite fond of saying: "If you asked me, you know, why am I not in favor of bombing Japan, well, I'm only half-joking when I say they built my car, okay."

Wright also applies non-zero-sum logic to evolution. Even if a giant rock from space knocks out a large percentage of the population, rest assured natural selection has a knack for creating "new technologies," such as eyes for sight and wings for flight. Both have arisen on separate occasions--with eyesight haven been confirmed to have been invented dozens of times.

So if technology is increasing more non-zero-sum games, how is technology falling apart?

Are Michio Kaku and other futurists delusional?

 

[Lunitik]

I do not see how technology is falling apart at all, for instance, right now the technology industry is entirely recreating the very nature of CPU's (the APU) and reinventing it entirely under the ARM platform (lower power consumption, essentially a motherboard on a chip). On top of this, we are seeing a huge shift to cloud computing in the industry. We also see things like smart phones and tablets entirely recreating the form factors of our systems. Google recently released an API for household appliances to interface with the internet, as well as their TV interfaces to turn your television into a more complete entertainment system. We also see on a yearly basis that data transfer rates are doubling as everything is becoming dependent on the internet. The computer industry certainly is moving just as fast as it ever has, and finding its way into every nook and cranny of life. Our cars will soon be driving themselves. We are ever trying to discover new types of fuel for them which is quite the innovation, and will change how all our electric systems function. We are even beginning to see biotech being experimented with!

Everything is in a constant state of evolution as far as I can tell in the technology industry, what rationale is there exactly for it falling apart? There is much competition in every area of this industry, to say it is falling apart is quite humorous. Whenever there is competition, there will always be innovation, this is inevitable. Just because it is not seen or acknowledged by the general populous doesn't mean it is valid to jump to these conclusions.

 

[Lunitik]

It is really sickening to me how many of the faithful are obsessed with finding doomsday signs, it really needs to stop. The only way the world is going to end is if these people obsessed with their religion blow up the earth because they believe they are acting on behalf of their God. I see this as quite likely in the current climate, but do you really think your God is going to recreate it if this happens? Why would he? He would see us as a failed experiment and try perfecting another type of life form on another planet which lacks our destructive nature. This of course assumes there even is a God, if there isn't, you just made our species and every other form of life on this planet extinct due to your zealotry and selfishness, your insistence to prove that your favourite fairytale is real. If this is the case, it isn't like we can just take back our actions and start over.

How sure are you of there being a God? I guess this is what it boils down to if this plays out. Then, we all have to die, this gives a whole new meaning to the phrases "mass murder" or "mass suicide" though. Scares me most because there are influences in Christian society that would be more than willing to go this route, and certainly in the Muslim world. Do you really think a loving God would permit such mayhem, though?

 

[Taoist]

Are you implying that living organisms are a form of technology? Seems abit of a crude way to describe it...

 

[Lunitik]

Are you implying that living organisms are a form of technology? Seems abit of a crude way to describe it...

Are they not? Why is this crude? We are currently trying to figure out how to transfer a rats brain to a supercomputer, does this not slightly blur the lines? I have already mentioned our inroads into biotech - currently we are seeing whether we can use such things in place of processors. This further blurs the lines, I think.

If we can load knowledge and consciousness onto a biological machine, how far are we really from creating a living being? I would perhaps suggest we have.

 

[Ahanu]

Are you implying that living organisms are a form of technology? Seems abit of a crude way to describe it...

Robert Wright's Nonzero can be separated into two parts: cultural evolution and biological evolution.

The latter half is more speculative, a lot more difficult to keep up with, and, to describe it in one word, fascinating.

In Darwinian terms, living things are "designed"—by natural selection—to get their genes into subsequent generations. To serve their "interests" is to aid this genetic proliferation. To frustrate their interests—to "exploit" them, for example is to reduce their genetic legacy.

With this vocabulary in hand, we can apply game theory to biological evolution. When two organic entities can enhance each other's prospects for survival and reproduction, they face a non-zero-sum situation; to the extent that their interests are at odds, the dynamic is zero-sum. In this light we will see that biological evolution, like cultural evolution, can be viewed as the ongoing elaboration of non-zero-sum dynamics. From alpha to omega, from the first primordial chromosome on up to the first human beings, natural selection has smiled on the expansion of non-zero-sumness...

NONZERO

 

[Lunitik]

I think it is fair to say that the technology industry is consolidating, we are currently trying to figure out how everything we use on a daily basis can be interfaced with the internet and our smart phones. Phones are essentially becoming life remotes, even consolidating things like bar code scanning at stores, public transit fairs, and indeed our credit cards. Indeed, further, there will be no need for things like tour guides at the museum because we can take a picture and have information about the art presented to us. We still have not figured out every possible use for a technology created in the 70's, thus we have no real necessity to innovate further technologically until we have exhausted this avenue. All we are currently doing is increasing the power and capabilities of those things which connect with it, and thus creating an easier world to live in.

Essentially this technology actually stems even further back, through television a telephones (currently IPTV and VoIP) all the way back to morse code invented in 1844 by Samuel Morse. All we have essentially done since the proof of his creation of Morse Code is refined the technology and further enhanced its capabilities. It is interesting to note that Samuel Morse's first message was "what hath God wrought?" due to the forum I am posting to. Even more interesting for those that believe in doomsday scenarios is that this event was within 24 hours of what many millions of people believe was Judgement Day - the Bab of the Baha'i Faith announcing he was a prophet similar in stature to Elijah, John the Baptist and perhaps Ali in a rough way.

I am not attempting to convert based on this strange coincidence - I am not even a Baha'i - however certainly I believe that what Baha'u'llah has taught is more healthy than believing the world will be destroyed by God in the near future....

 

[Taoist]

Personally, i feel it's a bit demeaning to call something as profound as life merely technology, but that's just my opinion.
I also think that the purpose of technology has pretty much lost its way somewhere over the years. The beginnings of technology seem more of a way to make life easier - now it seems it's merely there for either the shock value or to simply help the lazy become lazier. Machines doing jobs merely puts people out of work rather than help them. With the whole world at one's doorstep why would anyone bother experiencing it for themselves. I find technology began as a wondrous thing, but has over time became more of a parasitic substitute, feeding the mind all the wrong foods. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Lunitik]

Personally, i feel it's a bit demeaning to call something as profound as life merely technology, but that's just my opinion.
I also think that the purpose of technology has pretty much lost its way somewhere over the years. The beginnings of technology seem more of a way to make life easier - now it seems it's merely there for either the shock value or to simply help the lazy become lazier. Machines doing jobs merely puts people out of work rather than help them. With the whole world at one's doorstep why would anyone bother experiencing it for themselves. I find technology began as a wondrous thing, but has over time became more of a parasitic substitute, feeding the mind all the wrong foods. Just my opinion of course.

Technology has always been about laziness, it is just that over the last 200 years we have taken this to the extreme. What distinction can be made between making things easier, and creating laziness, it only means that the tool has been refined.

I personally welcome technology taking jobs, for I believe the world would be much better without money. If you want something, just order it and a machine will create it. If you want groceries, order it and machines can take care of cattle or farming for us. Clothes, have a machine make them. This frees humans to actually enjoy their life without any worries. There becomes no need to ever leave the state of childhood, no reason to ever cease learning and recreation.

For me, this paints a beautiful picture. We won't need government any more, for their purpose is to manage money and kill other nations that have what we want. There will be no power struggles because everyone will have what they want and be perfectly content. No more crime, because there is no necessity for people to survive in criminal ways. I would not go so far as to say money is the root of all evil, but certainly it is a major factor in the social ills of the world.

 

[Taoist]

I agree to some extent but i believe greed is inherent, and the greater the technological manufacture of things, the more money involved; for the minority of course!
As the saying goes "the knowledge of skill, gives way to the want of skill" and the knowledge of the wealthy will make others want to be wealthy, and no amount of technology would change that.
I believe i will have to echo (don't shoot me!!) Karl Marx and agree on his idea that the greater the industrial progress, the greater the segregation between the people of the world.
In my honest opinion (whatever that's worth) i would think that only change on an individual basis will save people from the vices of society, and taking away work will only superadd to the problem. I believe hard labour, e.g. farming, carpentry, art, etc, where enjoying what one does and accomplishing wothy rewards personally is the better solution, rather than liberating people from work altogether. Of all the people i've seen that do not work at all, but live on the bread line, not one is happy.

 

[Lunitik]

I agree to some extent but i believe greed is inherent, and the greater the technological manufacture of things, the more money involved; for the minority of course!
As the saying goes "the knowledge of skill, gives way to the want of skill" and the knowledge of the wealthy will make others want to be wealthy, and no amount of technology would change that.
I believe i will have to echo (don't shoot me!!) Karl Marx and agree on his idea that the greater the industrial progress, the greater the segregation between the people of the world.
In my honest opinion (whatever that's worth) i would think that only change on an individual basis will save people from the vices of society, and taking away work will only superadd to the problem. I believe hard labour, e.g. farming, carpentry, art, etc, where enjoying what one does and accomplishing wothy rewards personally is the better solution, rather than liberating people from work altogether. Of all the people i've seen that do not work at all, but live on the bread line, not one is happy.

I disagree that greed is inherent, but only because I personally do not experience it. I also believe that "to live on the bread line" it is necessary to insert money into the equation. Such people generally work harder than those who have amassed wealth simply to survive, and thus doing away with money would remove this issue.

What is greed, truly, however? In essence, it is jealousy, we do not wish for another to have what we cannot attain. We are shown from an early age that the acquisition of things defines our status, one of the earliest recollections many have is a monetary or material reward for a certain deed. Perhaps for others, we recall an excitement about the grandparents giving us money. This is learned, however, somewhere along the road we discovered that money can get us things we like.

Jealousy at its core also goes deeper, it is a more negative aspect of our natural instinct of competition. I think that sports are a very good avenue for exhausting this instinct, however, and there are others which can equally please in a world without money. If we put the emphasis on money towards education accolades or pursuits like medical or social work, anything more inherently positive and based on personal endeavour - perhaps permitting such people a larger home or something - I think society would benefit a great deal. I think a level of motivation would be necessary in any form of society, but when this motivation is money, it invites criminal activity, for it is not important how the money is obtained provided you can flash it through this mechanism.

Anyway, this is quite idealogical and at best it is some distance off, so it is quite irrelevant to discuss really. I just feel it is difficult for most people to even conceive of a world that is fundamentally different, so it is an interesting exercise.

 

[Thomas]

So if technology is increasing more non-zero-sum games, how is technology falling apart?

I'm not knocking technology per se. I am saying we are facing a number of significant problems — or rather refusing to face until it's too late — a number of issues which is going to cost us big time.

Starvation, population migration and third world economic crisis, all resulting from the first world's requirement for high-tech lifestyles.

Energy is a problem because of our profligate use of natural resources.

Without going into detail ... this is the first generation (the one that I belong to, and I'm over 50) that's handing a world over to our children in a worse state than the one I inherited, without any viable solution, and with the sure knowledge that my kids will never have it as good as I did.

Part of the problem is that we are dazzled by the glamour of technology.

As more than one commentator has noted, the solution will not lie in magical technotricks that will make the problem go away (in fact just postpones the inevitable) ... the only viable solution rests in doing without what we have become accustomed to.

Good grief, the Native American sages have been saying it ever since they met the white man ... it's just we're too selfish to admit it.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

It is really sickening to me how many of the faithful are obsessed with finding doomsday signs, it really needs to stop.

Well I hate to be a cloud in your blue sky, but do try explaining that to the significant number of the world population who are displaced, dispossessed, in migration and who will die in the next decade so you can continue to enjoy the lifestyle you are accustomed to.

You want a doomsday sign — the clear signifier that we have elected not to be not our brother's keeper, nor to love our neighbour ... a tedious religious message, I know, but then technology is amoral, isn't it, that's part of its appeal, even though it's never added a jot of worth to human life, and usually it's stripping the dignity of it somewhere.

The only way the world is going to end is if these people obsessed with their religion blow up the earth because they believe they are acting on behalf of their God.

No, tragically the cause will more likely be the kind of comp[lacency on display here.

Professor James Lovelock, the author of Gaia Theory, a scientist who's done amazing work on linear motors, etc., reckons 80% of the global population will die in the first half of this century ... and he's not a religious freak, he's a scientist who's been proven more than once to be more far-sighted than his contemporaries.

You don't have top believe him, but I suggest you don't ignore him.

I see this as quite likely in the current climate...

I think you need to get a grip of your prejudices.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Paladin]

I think I have to side with Thomas on this. Much as I applaud our advances, especially in medical science and technology, I think many of our toys are merely outward manifestations of the unhealthy narcissism my generation is prone to. It seems we have become a society of hungry ghosts.

 

[Ahanu]

Starvation, population migration and third world economic crisis, all resulting from the first world's requirement for high-tech lifestyles.

Technology is rising, not falling.

For instance, the Industrial Revolution marked a milestone in the acceleration of global population. The Earth reached one billion around 1830, and then flew by the 2.5 billion mark by 1950. This dramatic increase in population was not due to people having more babies; it was due to cleaner water, better medical treatment, and more access to vaccination.

So, yes, you can blame technology, for technology is rising.

Today the Earth has around 7 billion people. China and India have almost as many people as the Earth itself had in 1830. The increase in population will add to the already strong competition for finite resources.

Here's an important note: the more dense the population, the more technology advances.

Enter the Native Americans.

Good grief, the Native American sages have been saying it ever since they met the white man ... it's just we're too selfish to admit it.

The Europeans were more advanced, but they did not have a larger mental capacity than Native Americans, as you hinted to above. The Old World only had a several thousand year headstart on the New World.

Larger and denser populations are like a two sided coin: problems and opportunity. Opportunity comes from the likelihood that the more inventors you have, the more innovation you will have. An entire group can adopt the idea of an inventor. The problems come in when stress from the environment causes people to seek new solutions. Indeed, once your neighbor sees you have a car, air conditioner, and a job while he has no car, no air condition, and no job, he may begin to think violence could possibly solve the problem.

I think what you point out above is that people are falling apart. We do not have a sense of compassion; we have all this food, for example, that is unevenly distributed.

People are falling apart.

At the same time, technology glues us back together if it is used properly, I think. The glue here is new technology. New technology blazes a path for more non-zero-sum games.

 

[Lunitik]

Starvation, population migration and third world economic crisis, all resulting from the first world's requirement for high-tech lifestyles.

How are you making this correlation? Do you believe that starvation did not exist in the world prior to technology? No, the only difference is that now we are aware of it because the technology allows us to see. Of course, since Christ teaches that he has brought humanities salvation, it is difficult for a Christian to accept that he actually changed nothing. It is not your fault that you think this is something new, but it is your fault that you blame it on something other than human greed. Greed is a constant of the human condition.

Energy is a problem because of our profligate use of natural resources.

We still have an estimated 30 years of natural energy resources remaining, we are working on alternatives constantly, but it would not make sense to not use the resources we still have while perfecting the technologies we will soon depend on. You are essentially advocating hasty decisions out of fear, we simply have no effectively learned how to utilize other energy sources.

Without going into detail ... this is the first generation (the one that I belong to, and I'm over 50) that's handing a world over to our children in a worse state than the one I inherited, without any viable solution, and with the sure knowledge that my kids will never have it as good as I did.

Really? No viable solutions? I guess we're not working on nuclear power, solar power, wind power, nothing? You really don't think your kids have it as good as you did? Think back to when you were their age, no internet, few technologies in the kitchen. Our very way of life has changed drastically in the last 10 years, let alone the last 30.

Your sensationalism is quite unfounded, you want to see things negatively for your own reasons, but to try to convince others of this is unjustified.

 

[Lunitik]

Well I hate to be a cloud in your blue sky, but do try explaining that to the significant number of the world population who are displaced, dispossessed, in migration and who will die in the next decade so you can continue to enjoy the lifestyle you are accustomed to.

This is a constant in the world, we are simply more aware of it today. Do you think people were leaving Europe for America because conditions there were good? Consider the state of the world at that time, people throwing human waste into the streets, no sewage system at all. Few homes with clean water, even in the major cities in Europe. I would say things are improving in a huge way, although we are so used to it now that we pity those that still do not have it. This is certainly a good thing, we need to assist them in obtaining these things which we take for granted, but to think that our improvements signify a lowering of standards elsewhere is asinine.

You want a doomsday sign — the clear signifier that we have elected not to be not our brother's keeper, nor to love our neighbour ... a tedious religious message, I know, but then technology is amoral, isn't it, that's part of its appeal, even though it's never added a jot of worth to human life, and usually it's stripping the dignity of it somewhere.

What in human existence do you think does add worth to our lives? Did slavery add worth? Did the constant state of war and murder of previous civilizations, human sacrifices, all the ills of those times, did this add purpose to our existence? I am puzzled as to exactly what time in human existence you refer to as being so much better than the current climate?

Professor James Lovelock, the author of Gaia Theory, a scientist who's done amazing work on linear motors, etc., reckons 80% of the global population will die in the first half of this century ... and he's not a religious freak, he's a scientist who's been proven more than once to be more far-sighted than his contemporaries.

You don't suppose this is sensationalism, whether it is religious or not? Certainly, we need to figure out a cleaner fuel source, we have to perfect many of the things we currently take for granted. It would not be the first time such a high proportion of a civilization has died, however, I would direct you to the black plague as an example. If 80% of the population dies, but the other 20% learns the right lessons from it, I would say it is worth it.

I will remind you that the Book of Revelation teaches things quite similar to this mass death, yet you base the very meaning of your life on this message. Of course, this is why this mans words so appeal to you, he seems to be a sane man predicting similar to your scripture. I would suggest it is you that should get a grip of your prejudices, I am only stating what is.

 

[Thomas]

Technology is rising, not falling.

That's not the point.

I'm not disputing the advance of technology, I'm highlighting its discreet dehumanisation of man.

Today America, the most advanced technological nation on the planet, has more people in jail per capita than any other country in the world. If you're black, aged between 18-35, then one in nine of you is in prison.

For instance, the Industrial Revolution marked a milestone in the acceleration of global population.

It also marked a milestone in the dehumanising of the person, who is now an economic unit of production, and valued only as a consumer.

The Europeans were more advanced, but they did not have a larger mental capacity than Native Americans, as you hinted to above.

No I didn't, or if I did, it was accidental.

Larger and denser populations are like a two sided coin: problems and opportunity. Opportunity comes from the likelihood that the more inventors you have, the more innovation you will have. An entire group can adopt the idea of an inventor. The problems come in when stress from the environment causes people to seek new solutions. Indeed, once your neighbor sees you have a car, air conditioner, and a job while he has no car, no air condition, and no job, he may begin to think violence could possibly solve the problem.

You're too close to the argument. Step back ... and take a fresh view ... the tragedy is your neighbour values you according to your car, your air conditioner, your job ... and people value themselves accordingly.

Why, if technology is so wonderful, is self-harm and suicide so high among the young of technology-blessed nations?

People are falling apart.

And technological development is at the root of the problem. One might say removal from the land is the key to the crisis.

At the same time, technology glues us back together if it is used properly, I think.

It might well patch up the problem but it won't cure it, and less dependency on technology will be the most paionful part of the cure.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

That's not the point.

I'm not disputing the advance of technology, I'm highlighting its discreet dehumanisation of man.

Thankyou for your clarification, Thomas!

And technological development is at the root of the problem.

As for technology dehumanizing humans and being the root of the problem, I disagree: Biology is the root of the problem of dehumanization.

Chimpanzees de-chimpanzeeize other chimps. A group of researchers observed a chimp war in Gombe, where a group of male chimpanzees attacked a female and her infant from another group. Though the female made sexual postures in front of "Satan," the deadly chimp leader, he made his attack anyway. No matter what kind of way she tried to reach out and touch Satan, it would not appease his anger. "Satan actively rejected these contacts--and the second time he picked up a large handful of leaves and scrubbed his leg where her hand had rested," writes Goodall. The female was attacked again. Her infant was killed.

Could Satan have felt the female was "dirty"?

Possibly. For a chimp to kill its own species it is possible the chimp has a behavior that is capable of de-identifying with the "other" it is about to kill.

Humans show the same team aggression. Dehumanization can be described as team aggression gone wrong. It is an evolutionary hangover. "We see its traces everywhere," writes one scholar, "from the careful impaling of human beings so that they lived as long as possible on their stakes in Assyria twenty centuries before Christ to the genocides that scar our own time, twenty centuries after Christ." Humans have a predisposition to see the world through the lens of ingroups or outgroups. Give the war-mongering male chimp a gun, teach the male chimp how to use it, and I'm sure the male chimp will spray bullets into the other group, especially at other male chimps. Technology seems to me a form of dehumanization, just as religion can be a form of dehumanization.

One explanation could be scarce resources, for Bonobos, not having the problem of scarce resources, show a serious lack of team aggression. Bonobos have been observed for thousands of hours without displaying team aggression. Perhaps they once had team aggression, but no longer needed it due to how and where they live. Team aggression, which is not possible without the ability to de-identify and dehumanize, once served a purpose, but it no longer serves a purpose.

 

[Ahanu]

Why, if technology is so wonderful, is self-harm and suicide so high among the young of technology-blessed nations?

Good question!

Strangely, if technology-blessed nations do have higher suicide rates, they are more likely to have lower murder rates. Japan would be an example. Click below for my source:

Freakonomics Fewer Murders, More Suicide?

countries with lower murder rates tend to have higher rates of suicide. Take Japan, which has one of the lowest murder rates in the world — just 0.5 per 100,000 people. It also has a very high rate of suicide, 23.7 per 100,000. Jamaica, on the other hand, has an unusually high murder rate — 49 per 100,000 — and the unusually low suicide rate of 0.35 per 100,000.

the murder rate in the U.S. is 5.8 per 100,000. The suicide rate is 10.85, meaning you’re twice as likely to die by your own hand here than at the hands of another.