Jump to content

Life without gadgets


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

I stand corrected and fair one, mate. :thumbs:

I'd agree that tech alone isn't responsible but tech has played a massive part in raising everything from living conditions to our understanding of the world. The age of information would be impossible without it and the only people that seem to have lost out are the religious.

No doubt mate. In many objective measures scientific progress and the tech it provides have improved human society. It's the subjective and not so easily quantifiable that has really made me question my long held belief that 'progress has made the world a better place'. I'm just not so sure anymore.

The unnatural form of modern society has undoubtedly decreased an individuals chances of dying prematurely, from the likes of malnutrition, murder, predation, accident, disease etc, but at what cost? Are our lives more fulfilling? Has our well being improved or deteriorated with all the technology that progress has brought?

Our advanced state of society has reduced premature death and given us access to vast amounts of knowledge & understanding but made us slaves to consumerism and increased the prevalence of a new breed of disease (mental health) to name a few. While we are more connected than ever through tech, we have fostered an environment of less quality social interaction. We've consigned famine to history yet now suffer from a new disease of obesity.

Another more controversial example; we have reduced infant mortality to almost nothing but now medically abort prenatal humans to the ratio of 1:4 of annual child births. That's undoubtedly medical/technological progress but is it social progress?

I see our scientific advancement as a double edged sword now, that isn't so clear as it used to be. It's a ride that we take together and is our nature as a species. There's no exit really, even if an individual was able to override their natural human behaviour.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I survived before mobile phones and have never needed or had one. I go on this tablet to look on here and YouTube and another hunting site but I don't take it on holiday or when I'm out anywhere. Neve

It'd be to the detriment of technological and economic progress but to the benefit of social cohesion imo. Progress is a bit of a trap. We pursue it out of the short term sense of improved well b

Pretty much like you I,m on my iPad now but hate the amount of time it seems to consume from my life, I have a very basic pay as you go phone and this is the only forum or site I use apart from watchi

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

No doubt mate. In many objective measures scientific progress and the tech it provides have improved human society. It's the subjective and not so easily quantifiable that has really made me question my long held belief that 'progress has made the world a better place'. I'm just not so sure anymore.

That's a fair one. I edge on the side of optimism on this one. Despite what the 24-hour news cycle would have us believe the 1st world in generally safer than it was 40 years ago although I'm sure one could argue that we're redressing the balance that was thrown out post WW2 and up into the 70's-80's. That is progress. Whether it's better is still up for debate although how can anyone really compare this over the space of multiple generations?

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

The unnatural form of modern society has undoubtedly decreased an individuals chances of dying prematurely, from the likes of malnutrition, murder, predation, accident, disease etc, but at what cost? Are our lives more fulfilling? Has our well being improved or deteriorated with all the technology that progress has brought?

Again it's hard to quantify but how can we be sure it's unnatural if we're able to conceive and create such things in the first place? What's to say that the traditional way is indeed the correct way? If you ask seven billion people what constitutes a fulfilling life you'll probably get ten billion different answers but is the natural order and well being mutually exclusive? How far back in development would be considered optimum or even desirable?

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

Our advanced state of society has reduced premature death and given us access to vast amounts of knowledge & understanding but made us slaves to consumerism and increased the prevalence of a new breed of disease (mental health) to name a few. While we are more connected than ever through tech, we have fostered an environment of less quality social interaction. We've consigned famine to history yet now suffer from a new disease of obesity.

With many steps forward there have been periods of transition and with that confusion. I believe it was Penn Jillette that said "50 million years ago the biggest problem was too few calories and too little information. For 50 years our biggest problem has been too many calories and too much information." We're adjusting and it's messy but ultimately I believe we'll come out of the other side. Whether it's better or worse is pure speculation but our ability to manipulate technology will be the decider, IMHO.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

Another more controversial example; we have reduced infant mortality to almost nothing but now medically abort prenatal humans to the ratio of 1:4 of annual child births. That's undoubtedly medical/technological progress but is it social progress?

That's a tough one. Is it better to remove the heartbreak of dead kids or is it better to grieve the passing of dead kids? The end result is the same and while technology has improved our ability to both the end result is still the same. Detachment and indifference. That's never changed.

2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

I see our scientific advancement as a double edged sword now, that isn't so clear as it used to be. It's a ride that we take together and is our nature as a species. There's no exit really, even if an individual was able to override their natural human behaviour. 

I can agree with you there but again I side with optimism. Every technological advancement has come with a learning curve. You're absolutely right that we're being carried by the current either way. There's no way back and despite harkening back to a simpler time it just isn't going to happen without a massive global catastrophe. Isn't that the peril of our species though? We're developed far enough to understand the peril we face but not far enough to do much about it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair comments, my friend. I've also got a running hypothesis that the reason we're having posting issues and 404 errors is due to the number of embedded quotes we're trying to partition for a response. Here goes...

2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

 

20180820_195347.jpg

I'll have to admit here that psychological studies into personal well-being are alien to me. I certainly couldn't argue for or against and it's on the Jones Map that reads "Here Be Monsters." Not to sound like I discredit its validity but I just don't know enough to reasonably comment. I've always been a big believer in the gut feeling type of intuition and while hardly scientific I have few regrets in life from listening to it. I certainly don't feel unfulfilled.

Understood with the clarification. I totally agree with you there and as I said earlier there will be a steep and messy learning curve to go with it. We've reached the level where we can change our environment to suit our needs rather than adapt to a changing environment. At least to a point. So I retract the comment "How far back in development would be considered optimal, or desirable" with "Like it, or lump it, nostalgia ain't what it used to be."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

20180820_195539.jpg

I do tend to agree with you here. I suppose primitive society does have different views on life achievements but I dare say that many 1st worlders do too. I guess when you're pre-occupied with food, water, shelter, and survival of the species weekends in the pub don't really enter into it but as far melancholy with life choices are they any different in the last 50 years? Or are they just much more widely reported because of technology? Are studies revealing new conditions or old ones that society deemed taboo?

2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

20180820_195253.jpg

I think opinions on family bereavement will differ as much as those on life goals. I'm more with the belief that primitive society was/are more in tune with their environment and accept this as part of the natural cycle. Being closer to reality in that sense makes it easier to transition but not necessarily any less traumatic. I don't think it's a terrible thing to believe at all.

I didn't take what you were saying as a moral judgement by any stretch. I tend to agree with you that technology has once again jumped out ahead I think we only differ is where I believe we'll catch up and have a period of stability before the next leap and overall for those leaps that damage there will be a correction that will help.

As always thanks for your input! :thumbs:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...