Technology will save us, so fuck it.....

[JSPAG]

I've been paying attention to the people at The Zeitgeist Movement. It seems they believe that an all powerful, technologically applied system will save us from ourselves. I keep running into the mentality of, someone will create X technology to achieve Y and Z will be the outcome. If Z isn't the outcome we'll be advanced enough to just move to another planet. I can't see the validity of justifying destructive human behavior with technology. Especially a purely theoretical technology that isn't even past the "drawing board". Dealing with the humanist crowd can be frustrating. Everyone is equal, IQ doesn't exist, and everything must be summed up in a quippy or "clever" video.....

[scourge]

This is another example of the secular fundamentalism of post-Christian modernity. Jesus is coming, so like whatever man. Party on.

[JSPAG]

Hilarity inside

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=230&id=327853

[Transcix]

I thought Jehovah was a space alien and supposed to bring us technology to save everyone?

[Dedrater]

Something to note: They believe that, in order to achieve their goals, a "critical mass" needs to be convinced of the validity of their proposed direction. By this, they seem to mean something like the majority of the human species. In other words, until most people -- and governments -- recognize their goals and decide to live together in harmony, they're not going to attempt to build cities or implement new technologies.

The logical question is, of course: What set of ideas has ever convinced the majority of the human species?

I think the answer is obvious.

[Transcix]

I think it's obviously important to separate on one hand talking about things like the potentially massive benefits of technology, reaching a critical mass, etc, and on the other hand taking these things to justify laziness until they come to pass.

Also I'm unaware that taking these things to justify laziness is as widespread a phenomena as you all seem to be suggesting. Maybe it's bigger than I though though, it's possible.

Anyways, I think it's obvious that technology can brings us tremendous advantages in the future, and I do believe that a critical mass of enlightenment is a possibility for the future, but I don't condone laziness so I think it's important to make this distinction.

This being said, on a personal level I'm not convinced more technology is the way to go, although I'm leaning in that direction. The thing is it would be such a pain to maintain and to have to always teach new generations about it, because it's so far from nature, it's really not pleasant to deal with at all. In my mind either some of the population would have to make a sacrifice and do it for the rest or perhaps we could all take turns, or alternatively I think it's definitely possible certain types of people would actually enjoy dealing with science and mathematics and technology enough that they would volunteer to take care of it happily (I recognize there are a variety of personality archetypes other than my own).

Also on the issue of a critical mass of enlightenment, again my view isn't black and white. For one thing, enlightenment that would reach a critical mass would have to be of a right-leaning, faith-based variety because it's much easier to learn and teach, and I'm not convinced this is possible or even an ideal goal to strive for. In my view the right-hand path is useful in times of difficulty, for example the slave with no prospects of escape can take far more solace in the notion of God than in the notion of one day himself becoming a master of slaves, and so his faith can give him strength to carry on. The extent to which I see the right-hand path as a vehicle for serious change against very repressive forces is a matter I'm not decided on yet.

[Cargést]

Reading that thread on that forum, one of the users posted something about "offending my morals".  This confuses me.  I was under the impression that these people were technophiles - are they, somehow, humanist technophiles?  Because that just doesn't make sense.  Haven't they ever seen Terminator 1 and 2?

[indjaseemun]

The logical question is, of course: What set of ideas has ever convinced the majority of the human species?

Get sex, TV and money did the trick.

[Chains]

Reading that thread on that forum, one of the users posted something about "offending my morals".  This confuses me.  I was under the impression that these people were technophiles - are they, somehow, humanist technophiles?  Because that just doesn't make sense.  Haven't they ever seen Terminator 1 and 2?

They are. They've never revised their morality, they merely adhere to technology= messiah as far as I've seen. The first reply to that thread seems to basically sum it all up: they have some ideas that seem nice until you grab a pen and paper and do some math on the scale of, well, maybe not money, but work-hours / effort then, it would cost. Of course, these numbers will all be meaningless because in ten years time I'm sure it should all be easily doable with New Technology That Will Save Us.

Transcix, the issue isn't whether better technology is a good thing or not, the problem is people, even outside the zeitgeist movement, will fix everything. Overpopulation? Nah no worries, plenty of space. No food? We'll make more with Better Technology. No water? We'll make more with Better Technology. Global warming? We'll fix it with Better Technology. No more oil? We'll create plenty of energy for everyone with Better Technology. People are stupid? We'll educate them all to geniuses with Better Technology. The list goes on and on and on.

[Chessnut]

Same drivel I always hear from members of ANUS. Blah blah blah IQ blah blah eugenics. Selling death is not exactly feasible. Instead of that perspective, look for alternatives. How can humans sustain ourselves with an even larger population?

Use the IPAT equation. I've done lots of research on this subject, and this theory of considers the basics of human society impacting the environment. It's a good start.

"Technological optimism. The second assertion is that technological advances will sufficiently lower per capita impacts through reductions in [technology] that no major changes in lifestyle will be necessary. This assertion rep resents a level of optimism held primarily by nonscientists. (A 1992 joint statement by the US National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society expresses a distinct lack of such optimism). Technical progress will undoubtedly lead to efficiency improvements, resource substitutions, and other innovations that are currently unimaginable. Different estimates of future rates of technical progress are the crux of much of the disagreement between ecologists and economists regarding the state of the world. Nonetheless, the costs of planning development under incorrect assumptions are much higher with overestimates of such rates than with underestimates (Costanza 1989)."

This issue has been around for decades. You need to sell the idea. Make it appealing. Even though we are far beyond our carrying capacity, please don't consider that killing off people is the panacea. There are other ways of achieving a sustainable society (although this would definitely be the easiest way). A friend of mine who is a radical leftist/humanitarian believes that once the world becomes "developed" that there would be a stabilization in population. Now, you must consider carrying capacity. If we're above carrying capacity and our population stabilizes above this limit, will technology be enough to offset issue before we're all dead? It's very optimistic to think that, considering that our economic system does not promote sustainability, but rather unbridled growth. How do we deal with an economic system that is unrealistic but all too powerful?

Again, even with the optimistic assumption that population will stabilize and that technology can solve our problems, we still need to worry about consumption via economic growth, as by definition, businesses revolve around the idea of selling resources and services. Consider the ideas of industrial ecology, material efficiency and steady-state economy.

YOU ARE NOT ON THIS FORUM BECAUSE YOU ARE MYSANTHROPIC PESSIMISTS. YOU ARE HERE BECAUSE YOU ARE FREE THINKERS.

Check 'em you blind emo trolls, instead of bitching and moaning:

"Population, Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Capacity: A framework for estimating population sizes and lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining future generations"  by Gretchen C. Daily and Paul R. Ehrlich (1992)

"What is ecological economics?" by Costanza (1989)

"Impact of Population Growth"  by Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren (1971)

"Population and Panaceas A Technological Perspective" by Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren (1969)

[Dedrater]

The logical question is, of course: What set of ideas has ever convinced the majority of the human species?

Get sex, TV and money did the trick.

I figured that someone would bring this up, but I think this group is more interested in there being a general consensus in their favor in more or less all nations on Earth. The Middle East is starting to go down the path mentioned above (e.g. United Arab Emirates), but there are certainly still Afghanistans and Somalias on this planet. They are becoming fewer and fewer, though.

[Dedrater]

The forum ate my post, so forgive me if it comes back at some point and this appears to be a double post:

The logical question is, of course: What set of ideas has ever convinced the majority of the human species?

Get sex, TV and money did the trick.

I figured that someone would bring this up, but I think this group is more interested in there being a general consensus in their favor in more or less all nations on Earth. The Middle East is starting to go down the path mentioned above (e.g. United Arab Emirates), but there are certainly still Afghanistans and Somalias on this planet. They are becoming fewer and fewer, though.

[indjaseemun]

Resources and space: Finite. Population increase and demands: Indefinite

There's no escaping this train of thought, at least for me.

[Nimbostratus]

-

[scourge]

Selling death is not exactly feasible.

True, but reducing or eliminating subsidies for the chronic hopeless is a practical goal, especially during an age of social decline and economic distress. What passes for America's right wing is composed of entitlement and subsidy slashers as a major platform item. Reducing the public debt is therefore sometimes a euphemism for ditching useless and parasitic people.

Getting rid of the surplus wealth sucking programs to keep lifelong defectives alive/appeased would actually free up research and development funding. Secular humanism often confounds progress.