Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Fidcal

We have become Big Brother

Recommended Posts

Big brother is now going to tell you what TV programs you like to watch.

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23902813-virgins-latest-set-top-box-can-predict-the-programmes-youll-want-to-see.do

 

Well, perhaps that's not so new. My on-line supermarket (Asda) already tells me "we think you would also like..." = "we think you are stupid enough to buy even more so we can make more money"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay new analogy:

 

My friend finds out his wife is cheating and wants to pay me to make a plan to kill her, I agree because I'm not killing her and I make the plan using my scientific prowl. Am I not partially responsible for her death when he kills her using my plan?

 

That's better! :) Now you are basically scheming to participate in a murder, so you certainly are guilty. But the analogue still does not fit the case where a weapon designer does his job and creates a gun, which a soldier uses to kill people that a politician/general targets for the killing. The weapon designer is not participating in a scheme of killing.

 

Think about the nuke: the scientists figure out the principle, the engineers build the bomb according to scientists instructions. The politicians/generals press the big red button. Who is guilty? The politicians/generals could easily make the decision to use the weapon only as a leverage, never as a weapon itself.

 

Einstein also said he had other great ideas for things which he didn't develop because he felt that humanity would be irresponsibleness with them.

 

Which was very nice and considerate of him. Science gives us possibilities, but the policy makers decide how the possibilities are exloited.

 

I think scientific developments wont rid people of their materialism, in-fact I think the opposite would be true. The more dependent we become on tools and materials for our lives the more materialistic we will be. So I fail to see how a scientist would rid society of our acceptance of the type of business corporations use to fulfill our material needs. Unless we're talking some sort of pill, in which case who would ever want to take a pill to rid them self of materialist attitudes? IMO removing humans from the equation in trying to find the solution is completely the wrong direction.

 

"Chemistry means the difference between poverty and starvation and the abundant life."

-Robert Brent

 

The fruits science improves the lives of everyone. Think about it: in the medieval times there were the nobility (really small amount of people) and the peasants (really large amount of people). The resources were scarce. The noblitity had it all, the peasants had nothing (but work.)

 

Scientific achievements mean that more people now can live more abundant life than even the kings of the medieval era.

 

Thus scientific developments have huge impacts on our fast changing society and I think that future scientific revelations make the current social-economical "My SUV is bigger than yours" civilization obsolete. But I agree that human greed and excess are fundamental obstacles: humans will always be immature for new technologies for some time.

 

I know that someone might point out that our ecological footprint is huge when compared to the medieval times and this current abundant life destroys the planet: scientists fault. I respond to this with:

 

I wish the money spend on recent US wars were spend on renewable energy research instead... We would have Grätzel solar cell / Nocera electrolysis -power plants in apartment buildings already, cutting overall energy consumption greatly in a green way.


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's better! smile.gif Now you are basically scheming to participate in a murder, so you certainly are guilty. But the analogue still does not fit the case where a weapon designer does his job and creates a gun, which a soldier uses to kill people that a politician/general targets for the killing. The weapon designer is not participating in a scheme of killing.

 

I have to respectfully disagree here. One of the reasons the world is so screwed up as it is is because people think they're not responsible for anything. That things aren't connected. That their actions are isolated incidents that don't affect anything outside their little sphere of influence/deeds.

 

If there were no means, like weapons, to kill people, killing would be a lot harder to accomplish and thus there would be less killings. Just because the weapon designers do not force a person to buy a gun or make the generals order someone to kill, they make it possible for people to do so. The are, at the very least, partially to blame. Some accountability should exist, right?

 

Killing has been made easy. And big gun companies don't give a rat's ass who buys and sells their guns. Everytime someone kills with their weapons, hey, it's free publicity - and they make more money. Gun companies should acknowledge that they are not innocent in all of this.

 

... Not that that is EVER going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to respectfully disagree here. One of the reasons the world is so screwed up as it is is because people think they're not responsible for anything. That things aren't connected. That their actions are isolated incidents that don't affect anything outside their little sphere of influence/deeds.

 

If there were no means, like weapons, to kill people, killing would be a lot harder to accomplish and thus there would be less killings. Just because the weapon designers do not force a person to buy a gun or make the generals order someone to kill, they make it possible for people to do so. The are, at the very least, partially to blame. Some accountability should exist, right?

 

Well, this certainly seems true. My point is that the gun designer cannot possibly be blamed when a war occurs, where weapons designed by him are routinely used to kill other people. Partial blame may be transferred, but in practical sense it would be silly to prosecute individual gun designers after -for example- a school shootout. There are others who are more guilty.

 

Everything is connected to everything so the line has to be drawn somewhere. A metal company would be prosecuted for producing led, which is used to make bullets, which are used to kill people. Is the guy who smelted the trigger for an AK47-rifle in a factory personally responsible for the killings done with the rifle? He just needed the salary to make ends meet. Am I personally responsible if the research I do open up a new research path, which opens a new research path, which opens a new research path, which opens a new research path which leads to the ultimate doomsday device?

 

I'd say it is sane to limit the blame-chain (hey a new concept!) to only a few jumps, which covers only the most immediate parties. You know, the ones who dictate the specifics of the killings. ;)

 

Killing has been made easy. And big gun companies don't give a rat's ass who buys and sells their guns. Everytime someone kills with their weapons, hey, it's free publicity - and they make more money. Gun companies should acknowledge that they are not innocent in all of this.

 

... Not that that is EVER going to happen.

 

Certainly it would be much more fun and safe to live in a world where there would be no guns and people had so high ethical standards that they refuse to even go on a research path which would yield Technology of Death.

 

Unfortunately that is not our reality. If Kalashnikov would have said "Nope, I'm not making guns, they kill people." Then someone else would have made an equally or more devastating killing machine.

 

Like in Einstein's case: either nuke for the US or nuke for Hitler.

Easy decision.


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this certainly seems true. My point is that the gun designer cannot possibly be blamed when a war occurs, where weapons designed by him are routinely used to kill other people. Partial blame may be transferred, but in practical sense it would be silly to prosecute individual gun designers after -for example- a school shootout. There are others who are more guilty.

 

Everything is connected to everything so the line has to be drawn somewhere. A metal company would be prosecuted for producing led, which is used to make bullets, which are used to kill people. Is the guy who smelted the trigger for an AK47-rifle in a factory personally responsible for the killings done with the rifle? He just needed the salary to make ends meet. Am I personally responsible if the research I do open up a new research path, which opens a new research path, which opens a new research path, which opens a new research path which leads to the ultimate doomsday device?

 

I'd say it is sane to limit the blame-chain (hey a new concept!) to only a few jumps, which covers only the most immediate parties. You know, the ones who dictate the specifics of the killings. wink.gif

 

Certainly it would be much more fun and safe to live in a world where there would be no guns and people had so high ethical standards that they refuse to even go on a research path which would yield Technology of Death.

 

Unfortunately that is not our reality. If Kalashnikov would have said "Nope, I'm not making guns, they kill people." Then someone else would have made an equally or more devastating killing machine.

 

Like in Einstein's case: either nuke for the US or nuke for Hitler.

Easy decision.

 

The blaim-chain (good one btw) can be divided in two, I think: the ethical and the legal. The responsibility of people or larger entities down the chain would, of course, be less to blaim for any consequences that occur - be they good or bad. The question is how far down the line?

 

Legally I think the completely cold and calculated way gun companies conduct their business should be held legally accountable for crimes committed with weapons. The degree of this accountability needs to be discussed among both the people and the courts so that justice is met. Public opinion can have enormous weight in matters such as these.

 

The reason why I think this is because these corporations clearly take no etchical stance on their business practices or the results of those practices: "it's not our fault that guns kill people 'cos people kill people". It's such a gross simpilification of a much more complicated issue.

 

As long as these faceless money-grabbing corporations can conduct business as usual with zero-accountability nothing is going to change. Now I'm not saying that by eliminating gun companies is going to end violence (for f*s sake), but it would send a message that behind these glass and steel walls and hordes of lawyers are people who, for all intents and purposes, should know better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can suffocate someone with a pillow or poison them with medication. Does that make the manufacturer an accomplice to murder? It's the misuse of items that is the problem, not the items themselves.

 

Proper weapons have a legitimate use. They are a deterrent and it's probably the only thing keeping civilization afloat.

 

I agree that in a world without weapons murder rates would drop. But the volume of violence overall would remain a constant if not increase. Who would be left to enforce laws and keep the peace? You'd be depending on strong alpha males types to do the right thing when it's just as easy for them to beat the piss out of you and take what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can suffocate someone with a pillow or poison them with medication. Does that make the manufacturer an accomplice to murder? It's the misuse of items that is the problem, not the items themselves. Proper weapons have a legitimate use.

 

Pillows are for everyday life, common household items. Medication is intended - mainly - to help people, to cure them and relieve their pain. Guns... Well, that's another story. They're items that have specifically been designed to harm or to kill. Because of that I think it only decent that the manufacturers accept some responsibility for the ramifications of their product released out into the world. Sure, people can be morons with or without guns, but I certainly hope most people don't entertain thoughts of murder all the time and just look for things that can help them do that.

 

They are a deterrent and it's probably the only thing keeping civilization afloat.

 

By the Builder, I certainly hope not!

 

I agree that in a world without weapons murder rates would drop. But the volume of violence overall would remain a constant if not increase. Who would be left to enforce laws and keep the peace? You'd be depending on strong alpha males types to do the right thing when it's just as easy for them to beat the piss out of you and take what they want.

 

Enforcers of the peace using the same weapons as the transgressors, yeah, that's an unfortunate fact of crime fighting. It's equally unfortunate that good people have to stoop down to the level of criminals to protect society and its citizens. It's true that if a person wants to kill someone they usually find a way to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can suffocate someone with a pillow or poison them with medication. Does that make the manufacturer an accomplice to murder? It's the misuse of items that is the problem, not the items themselves.

 

Proper weapons have a legitimate use. They are a deterrent and it's probably the only thing keeping civilization afloat.

 

I agree that in a world without weapons murder rates would drop. But the volume of violence overall would remain a constant if not increase. Who would be left to enforce laws and keep the peace? You'd be depending on strong alpha males types to do the right thing when it's just as easy for them to beat the piss out of you and take what they want.

 

 

Poison is made primarily for killing rodents or other things like that, an AK47 or nuclear bomb is made specifically for blowing up people. Sotha was saying there has never been a scientific leap that hasn't occurred peacefully.

 

Sotha I disagree that more resources will mean more peace. Look at the USA, the most abundant resources ever seen in the world. Has this made them more peaceful?

 

Additionally you point out that a monarchist king/peasant system was made obsolete by the introduction of abundant resources. While this may partially be true, attributing additional resources to be the only or main factor for the elimination of this type of system is historically, factually and logically flawed.

 

When reading my analogies just use your imagination to make sense of them :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sotha was saying there has never been a scientific leap that hasn't occurred peacefully.

Incorrect. I said:

For some reason, only scientific giant leaps seem to occur peacefully.

 

I do not see the word 'never.' And there is not the word 'always.' See? I describe a tendency, not a black and white fact.

 

And about the nuke, one could still argue it was a technological advance, which brought peace, not war. That tech ended the war, with the unfortunate cost of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Sotha I disagree that more resources will mean more peace. Look at the USA, the most abundant resources ever seen in the world. Has this made them more peaceful?

 

Additionally you point out that a monarchist king/peasant system was made obsolete by the introduction of abundant resources. While this may partially be true, attributing additional resources to be the only or main factor for the elimination of this type of system is historically, factually and logically flawed.

 

Of course it is not the only factor there. It would be silly to claim otherwise. I was not dicussing the disappearance of the feodal system. I was only saying that the people of our modern era are enjoying entirely different level of living than previously, mostly due to technological advances. Back in the medieval times destroyed crops meant starvation. In the current era we have systems for such events.

 

Recent studies (and common sense) indicate that people are more happy when basic sustenance and other life basics are in order. Technological advances provide it to us with high reliability.

 

When reading my analogies just use your imagination to make sense of them smile.gif

 

Yeah, I read them like you write them. If you try to convey some other information rather than the info you write, I will not receive it. I do not read minds and my connection to the orbital mind control satellites in currently offline due to Wikileaks security measures.

 

Remember also that, as concluded in some other threads, we seem to be on the other side of the spectrum, which makes picking up this type of imagination-hidden-meaning -information more difficult for me. To avoid misunderstanding, I emphasize that I say this with respect and politeness.


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect. I said:

 

 

I do not see the word 'never.' And there is not the word 'always.' See? I describe a tendency, not a black and white fact.

 

And about the nuke, one could still argue it was a technological advance, which brought peace, not war. That tech ended the war, with the unfortunate cost of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

 

Of course it is not the only factor there. It would be silly to claim otherwise. I was not dicussing the disappearance of the feodal system. I was only saying that the people of our modern era are enjoying entirely different level of living than previously, mostly due to technological advances. Back in the medieval times destroyed crops meant starvation. In the current era we have systems for such events.

 

Recent studies (and common sense) indicate that people are more happy when basic sustenance and other life basics are in order. Technological advances provide it to us with high reliability.

Honestly what I said is the same thing you said. One is written negatively and one positively in terms of grammar, that's the only difference I see. The meanings are the exact same.

 

Of course it is not the only factor there. It would be silly to claim otherwise. I was not dicussing the disappearance of the feodal system. I was only saying that the people of our modern era are enjoying entirely different level of living than previously, mostly due to technological advances. Back in the medieval times destroyed crops meant starvation. In the current era we have systems for such events.

 

Recent studies (and common sense) indicate that people are more happy when basic sustenance and other life basics are in order. Technological advances provide it to us with high reliability.

I'd have to disagree. I'd think people are regular when we have life basics and are not happy when we don't, happiness does not enter the equation of basic needs. Please cite some sources that indicate having food and shelter (the basic amenities you speak of) provide a happy life.

 

In terms of opposition to your theory you may refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs which shows the basic amenities at the bottom 2 of the 5 layer pyramid of motivation. Motivation and happiness aren't the same, but people are happy when they meet their goals and as the theory points out self-actualization is the supreme level to reach. You will never achieve a family, friends, children etc through basic amenities alone, amenities are a means of reaching but without the product of them life would suck.

 

We can also look at suicide rates of countries to determine the extent to which people are 'happy'

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_mal-health-suicide-rate-males

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_fem-health-suicide-rate-females

Notice how Canada and the US have substantially higher suicide rates than other countries considered less developed. If what you say was true, we should see the opposite, Canada and the US should be at the bottom of the list because we have excess basic needs which is why obesity is a rising epidemic. The view you hold which is that material will lead to happiness, even if that material is basic, is part of the reason corporations are able to use us in the manner in which they do. You think you will achieve happiness through material goods, so they provide them.

 

 

 

The fruits science improves the lives of everyone. Think about it: in the medieval times there were the nobility (really small amount of people) and the peasants (really large amount of people). The resources were scarce. The noblitity had it all, the peasants had nothing (but work.)

 

Scientific achievements mean that more people now can live more abundant life than even the kings of the medieval era.

 

Thus scientific developments have huge impacts on our fast changing society and I think that future scientific revelations make the current social-economical "My SUV is bigger than yours" civilization obsolete. But I agree that human greed and excess are fundamental obstacles: humans will always be immature for new technologies for some time.

 

I still don't understand how you draw this conclusion. Democracy and other ideologies were not the result of scientific innovation. I thought that these two underlined concepts were related when I read your post but in your last post you pointed out I was wrong to think you meant scientific developments had huge impacts on the feudal system when I read it and what you really meant was scientific developments played a partial role.

 

 

Yeah, I read them like you write them. If you try to convey some other information rather than the info you write, I will not receive it. I do not read minds and my connection to the orbital mind control satellites in currently offline due to Wikileaks security measures.

 

Remember also that, as concluded in some other threads, we seem to be on the other side of the spectrum, which makes picking up this type of imagination-hidden-meaning -information more difficult for me. To avoid misunderstanding, I emphasize that I say this with respect and politeness.

 

You clearly thought outside the box when posting this why can't you when reading what I write? Employing some flexibility in your thought process may help you understand my perspective a bit more because I'll continue with what I'm trying to convey to you:

 

 

Well, this certainly seems true. My point is that the gun designer cannot possibly be blamed when a war occurs, where weapons designed by him are routinely used to kill other people. Partial blame may be transferred, but in practical sense it would be silly to prosecute individual gun designers after -for example- a school shootout. There are others who are more guilty.

 

Everything is connected to everything so the line has to be drawn somewhere. A metal company would be prosecuted for producing led, which is used to make bullets, which are used to kill people. Is the guy who smelted the trigger for an AK47-rifle in a factory personally responsible for the killings done with the rifle? He just needed the salary to make ends meet. Am I personally responsible if the research I do open up a new research path, which opens a new research path, which opens a new research path, which opens a new research path which leads to the ultimate doomsday device?

 

I'd say it is sane to limit the blame-chain (hey a new concept!) to only a few jumps, which covers only the most immediate parties. You know, the ones who dictate the specifics of the killings. ;)

 

 

...

 

Unfortunately that is not our reality. If Kalashnikov would have said "Nope, I'm not making guns, they kill people." Then someone else would have made an equally or more devastating killing machine.

 

Like in Einstein's case: either nuke for the US or nuke for Hitler.

Easy decision.

 

This loose moral ambiguity voids people of responsibility for their actions. Einstein didn't have just two options, he had a third which was don't design a nuke for anyone.

 

If Kalashnikov based his moral judgement on developing the AK47 on 'well someone else will do it in the future' then this opens a flood gate of problems. Example: If a guy is on death row, why don't I just shoot him now? He will be dead in the future anyways, no blood on my hands. The planet is going to get polluted anyways, why should I do anything about reducing my carbon footprint? etc etc

 

Just because Kalashnikov was getting paid to design a rifle doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do. Without his rifle design surely lives would have been saved but we will never know and that's what we are left with but that doesn't rid the developer/scientist of their moral obligations to other individuals.

 

Even if one is not responsible for the murders committed with it, when developing something so powerful one must take into consideration how it will be used. To jump to the assumption that it will happen anyways and people will do whatever with it removes that morality from the situation. If you knew adding a net to the Golden Gate Bridge would prevent hundreds of suicides would you or would you say to yourself 'their going to commit suicide anyways, no blood on my hands?' If you saw an elderly woman and knew someone else was going to steal her belongings would you do it instead since it was going to happen anyways? I'd say anyone who feels no sense of wrong in providing a means of hurting people has a very cold heart. If this moral perspective were true among scientists then explain Einstein's own statements:

 

Einstein: "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing."

http://www.aish.com/sp/so/48950141.html

 

"Woe is me."—Albert Einstein, upon hearing the news of the Hiroshima bombing

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace/manhattan.php

 

In the most basic of analogies:

If you had the ability to create something that could kill everyone in the entire world would you because it's your job and would you be responsible if you sold it to someone who used it to kill everyone in existence?

I'd say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly what I said is the same thing you said. One is written negatively and one positively in terms of grammar, that's the only difference I see. The meanings are the exact same.

 

Well, if you do not see the difference, I cannot be blamed for it. It makes the continuation of this discussion difficult, because you can interpret my comments any way you please.

 

Please cite some sources

 

When people get risen up from poverty (peasant-level) to middleclass, happiness will ensue. Increasing wealth further brings no happiness benefits.

Stumbling on happiness, Daniel Gilbert.

 

 

 

 

I still don't understand how you draw this conclusion. Democracy and other ideologies were not the result of scientific innovation. I thought that these two underlined concepts were related when I read your post but in your last post you pointed out I was wrong to think you meant scientific developments had huge impacts on the feudal system when I read it and what you really meant was scientific developments played a partial role.

 

In feodal times tech level did not allow current middleclass level of living for everyone. Now it does. Of course the technology level affects all the aspects of civilization.

 

 

This loose moral ambiguity voids people of responsibility for their actions. Einstein didn't have just two options, he had a third which was don't design a nuke for anyone.

 

Yeah, but as concluded, he was persuaded by the risk of Hitler having it first.

 

I still don't understand how you draw this conclusion. Democracy and other ideologies were not the result of scientific innovation. I thought that these two underlined concepts were related when I read your post but in your last post you pointed out I was wrong to think you meant scientific developments had huge impacts on the feudal system when I read it and what you really meant was scientific developments played a partial role.

 

Technologal advances do change the world. If you do not understand this, I cannot help you. It is obvious. Think about the emergence of the internet, the world has never been so well connected. Foreign countries are suddenly near. Of course it will affect everything from politics to construction yard economics.

The basic idea is that new technologies can change the world. Including goverment and economic systems.

 

In the most basic of analogies:

If you had the ability to create something that could kill everyone in the entire world would you because it's your job and would you be responsible if you sold it to someone who used it to kill everyone in existence?

I'd say yes.

 

Remember that the reality is not so black and white like you suggest. The same tech, which provides the ability to destroy everything can also be used for peaceful purposes, providing huge benefits for the entire mankind. It is all about how the tech gets used. And that is not the scientist's call.


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When people get risen up from poverty (peasant-level) to middleclass, happiness will ensue. Increasing wealth further brings no happiness benefits.

Stumbling on happiness, Daniel Gilbert.

 

I believe this is one of the core philosophies of the Stoics. Of course, the fact that increased wealth isn't necessary for happiness doesn't imply that there aren't other things beyond basic needs that are necessary.

 

For an interesting counterpoint to the suggestion that technological advancements are increasing happiness:

 

Why the 21st century is making you miserable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you do not see the difference, I cannot be blamed for it. It makes the continuation of this discussion difficult, because you can interpret my comments any way you please.

 

When people get risen up from poverty (peasant-level) to middleclass, happiness will ensue. Increasing wealth further brings no happiness benefits.

Stumbling on happiness, Daniel Gilbert.

 

In feodal times tech level did not allow current middleclass level of living for everyone. Now it does. Of course the technology level affects all the aspects of civilization.

 

I understand what you are saying, I'm interpreting them the best I can, not the way I please. If you can help me understand what you are saying better please do so.

 

My problem with what I think you're saying is that technology was the main cause of peasants becoming middle class. The most obvious contrary example to this is:

Why would an all powerful king ever give up his power to peasants by allowing them to become middle class? To argue technological advances killed the Feudal system is simply incorrect, read this:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/black_death_of_1348_to_1350.htm

Political, spiritual, cultural and economic factors played major roles, technology almost nothing because it wasn't technology that killed the Feudal system.

 

 

 

Yeah, but as concluded, he was persuaded by the risk of Hitler having it first.

 

Technological advances do change the world. If you do not understand this, I cannot help you. It is obvious. Think about the emergence of the internet, the world has never been so well connected. Foreign countries are suddenly near. Of course it will affect everything from politics to construction yard economics.

The basic idea is that new technologies can change the world. Including goverment and economic systems.

 

Yes Einstein was persuaded by the risk of the Nazis developing an atom bomb, but what I was pointing out is he clearly understood he had a responsibility for his creations and how they were used. Thus you saying scientists aren't responsible for what people do with their creations is an incorrect view.

 

I never said technological advances don't change the world. It obviously does we are now surrounded by it 24/7. What I said is I disagree that technology leads to happiness or anti-materialist world views.

 

 

Remember that the reality is not so black and white like you suggest. The same tech, which provides the ability to destroy everything can also be used for peaceful purposes, providing huge benefits for the entire mankind. It is all about how the tech gets used. And that is not the scientist's call.

Where do I say reality is black and white???? I've never argued technology has no positive benefits, remember what we are talking about Sotha.

 

You've stated:

1) A technological revolution will eliminate our materialistic dependence on corporations.

Thus scientific developments have huge impacts on our fast changing society and I think that future scientific revelations make the current social-economical "My SUV is bigger than yours" civilization obsolete. But I agree that human greed and excess are fundamental obstacles: humans will always be immature for new technologies for some time.

2) Only scientific giant leaps occur peacefully

Aye! Let's just hope that the great man/woman is going to be a scientist.

 

The reason for this is that history shows that if a non-scientist great person advances things, it will always result in the deaths on very many people as a side effect. Alexander the great, Napoleon, [nazi card played], Stalin etc, etc, etc.

 

For some reason, only scientific giant leaps seem to occur peacefully. :wacko:

3) Scientists have no responsibility for how their creations are used

Heh.. Do note that the technology which is used for the bomb has other benefits. And it is not the scientists who order the pilots to drop ze bombs or fire ze missiles. It is The Great Leaders, politicians and soldiers. Not scientists.:)

4) Technology leads to happiness

Recent studies (and common sense) indicate that people are more happy when basic sustenance and other life basics are in order. Technological advances provide it to us with high reliability.

 

 

You still haven't cited where you got the 'recent studies' for the last quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
read this:

http://www.historyle...348_to_1350.htm

Political, spiritual, cultural and economic factors played major roles, technology almost nothing because it wasn't technology that killed the Feudal system.

 

Heh. That doesn't look like the most reliable information source. :P Note that my main point was not to go on about history, but the main point was to bring out the increase of peoples increased wealth when compared to those days. Technological adances have increased our materialistic welfare a lot since those days. You simply cannot deny that.

 

You've stated:

1) A technological revolution will eliminate our materialistic dependence on corporations.

Hey, you found the font-size switch! Does using it make comments different? Yeah, I think technological advances will bring changes into the society we live in.

 

 

 

2) Only scientific giant leaps occur peacefully

 

Yeah, to me scientific leaps SEEM to occur peacefully. Anything you've said so far has not altered this belief.

 

 

3) Scientists have no responsibility for how their creations are used

 

Yes they do. However, bigger responsibility falls on those who make the final decisions regarding the technologies. Scientists do not have the control over the politicians who decide how the technologies are used. Therefore I am uncertain how the scientists should express their responsibility. Care to elucidate that?

 

I'll give a fun example:

I invent a new type on Nanotech, which enables the construction of The Nanoparticle Bomb and The Universal Constructor.

 

At the moment of understanding the technology, I have the opportunity to contemplate whether or not I will publish my results to the world. Is it wrong or right to publish? Bombs or Constructors? The technology might allow the fabrication of Universal Constructors which would revolutionize material sciences, providing fun to all of humanity. Nanobombs would be the newest, deadliest and coolest killing device ever conceived. You could wipe out continents with those babies.

 

Of course I'll publish the results. It is my responsibility! It would be unethical to hold the results back. As a scientist, it is my duty to report my findings. It's my job. That's the reason I do what I do. If I do not publish, then someone else will, since the background knowledge I used to come to my invention is available to everyone.

 

So I publish the results. Then the control moves to the politicians. If the politicians decide to make Nanoparticle Bombs instead of Universal Constructors, I have no control over it. I can whine nearby (like everyone else) when the bomb plants start pouring out The Technology of Death, but what can I do about it?

Got it? It is just reality: Scientists are not policymakers. You simply cannot deny that.

 

 

4) Technology leads to happiness

 

You still haven't cited where you got the 'recent studies' for the last quote.

 

Oh, yes I did. The name of the book is in big red color text. The author name is in green. He's a professor in Harward. Hardward University is located in... Cambrigde.:huh: It is one of the most esteemed universities on this planet.

 

When people get risen up from poverty to middleclass, happiness will ensue. Increasing wealth further brings no happiness benefits.

Stumbling on happiness, Daniel Gilbert.

 

I'll write it more open: technological wonders create mechanisms which bring forth abundance of resources. More resources mean more people can get up from poverty. When people get up from poverty they become more happy. The downside is that more wealth (resources) are gathering to few individuals, making it more difficult to allocate the amount of funds which would elevate another person from misery (poverty) to happiness (middleclass). And these individuals do not get more happy even when they have more stuff.

 

All clear? ;) Looks like everyone else left this thread for us to derail into our wonderful discussions. :laugh:


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. That doesn't look like the most reliable information source. :P Note that my main point was not to go on about history, but the main point was to bring out the increase of peoples increased wealth when compared to those days. Technological adances have increased our materialistic welfare a lot since those days. You simply cannot deny that.

Opposed to your invisible sources? Go find a source that contradicts this, which indicate technological advances ended Feudal systems and I’ll be more inclined to believe you.

 

 

Hey, you found the font-size switch! Does using it make comments different? Yeah, I think technological advances will bring changes into the society we live in.

And you still haven’t stated how technology, which itself is materialistic will bring about a change of non-materialistic attitudes in society. You’ve completely ignored explaining this to me.

 

 

 

Yeah, to me scientific leaps SEEM to occur peacefully. Anything you've said so far has not altered this belief.

Firstly, you're altering what you said, this is what you actually said:

Aye! Let's just hope that the great man/woman is going to be a scientist.

 

The reason for this is that history shows that if a non-scientist great person advances things, it will always result in the deaths on very many people as a side effect. Alexander the great, Napoleon, [nazi card played], Stalin etc, etc, etc.

 

For some reason, only scientific giant leaps seem to occur peacefully. :wacko:

 

You can argue semantics all you want your just proving that you’re too stubborn to admit when your wrong.

 

Yes they do. However, bigger responsibility falls on those who make the final decisions regarding the technologies. Scientists do not have the control over the politicians who decide how the technologies are used. Therefore I am uncertain how the scientists should express their responsibility. Care to elucidate that?

 

I'll give a fun example:

I invent a new type on Nanotech, which enables the construction of The Nanoparticle Bomb and The Universal Constructor.

 

At the moment of understanding the technology, I have the opportunity to contemplate whether or not I will publish my results to the world. Is it wrong or right to publish? Bombs or Constructors? The technology might allow the fabrication of Universal Constructors which would revolutionize material sciences, providing fun to all of humanity. Nanobombs would be the newest, deadliest and coolest killing device ever conceived. You could wipe out continents with those babies.

 

Of course I'll publish the results. It is my responsibility! It would be unethical to hold the results back. As a scientist, it is my duty to report my findings. It's my job. That's the reason I do what I do. If I do not publish, then someone else will, since the background knowledge I used to come to my invention is available to everyone.

 

So I publish the results. Then the control moves to the politicians. If the politicians decide to make Nanoparticle Bombs instead of Universal Constructors, I have no control over it. I can whine nearby (like everyone else) when the bomb plants start pouring out The Technology of Death, but what can I do about it?

You’re ignoring the fact that someone would have to make the bomb and so forth. A science minded individual is required to design the bomb intended to kill people. I’m not talking about the discovery of splitting the atom I’m talking about scientists developing a bomb to kill people. For example think of a rocket scientist. Their job will be to get the correct trajectory for a rocket to hit a city killing people. How are they not implicated into the responsibility of that city's death when they know that the trajectory will be used to kill people.

Weather or not killing was right or wrong, their work is responsible for their deaths and that implicates them in the equation of responsibility.

 

Got it? It is just reality: Scientists are not policymakers. You simply cannot deny that.

I never said they were. Their work obviously influences politics though. Look at global warming, scientists have had large impacts on policies. In this regard you could say they're political lobbyists to an extent. They are not separated from the rest of the world as you would seem to suggest.

 

Oh, yes I did. The name of the book is in big red color text. The author name is in green. He's a professor in Harward. Hardward University is located in... Cambrigde.:huh: It is one of the most esteemed universities on this planet.

 

I'll write it more open: technological wonders create mechanisms which bring forth abundance of resources. More resources mean more people can get up from poverty. When people get up from poverty they become more happy. The downside is that more wealth (resources) are gathering to few individuals, making it more difficult to allocate the amount of funds which would elevate another person from misery (poverty) to happiness (middleclass). And these individuals do not get more happy even when they have more stuff.

 

No it isn’t all clear. Yes it makes sense that going from poverty to middle class would make you happier. But this does not sustain happiness as you suggest. As I previously stated using Maslow's theory it's the bottom two.

It's more like this:

Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory:

http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/herzberg/

 

There's 2 factors to motivation:

1) Satisfiers which are positively perceived influences

2) Dis-satisfiers which are negatively perceived influences

 

Let's say someone wants to buy a phone. They expect their phone to have the ability to text. They have the choice between two phones, one that texts and one that does not text. The phone which does not text has a dis-satisfier associated with it because it doesn't text. The phone that does text has neither a satisfier or dis-satisfier, it's neutral but more valuable than the non-texting phone because the non texting phone has 1 dis-satisfier.

Now say someone has 2 phones both text one has a free camera attached to it, that's a satisfier because it's something extra.

 

Food and shelter are not satisfiers. But the lack of food and shelter is a dis-satisfier. Thus when you have them you're in a state of neutrality and when you don't you are in a state of unsatisfaction. Happiness does not enter the equation until you start to say, well maybe it's really yummy food. In which case, that is a short-term satisfier, I've never ever been happy for extended periods of my life because I ate a steak.

 

 

Maslow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow

Herzberg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Herzberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opposed to your invisible sources? Go find a source that contradicts this, which indicate technological advances ended Feudal systems and I'll be more inclined to believe you.

 

I did provide the source. Even with pretty colors. I will not delve in this more. I don't have the time to write everything again, so I'll copy-paste:

Note that my main point was not to go on about history, but the main point was to bring out the increase of peoples increased wealth when compared to those days. Technological adances have increased our materialistic welfare a lot since those days. You simply cannot deny that.

 

 

And you still haven't stated how technology, which itself is materialistic will bring about a change of non-materialistic attitudes in society. You've completely ignored explaining this to me.

 

How would I know? How can we know what kind of changes are coming? It is the future thing. Fact is that things will change eventually. I'm excited to see how. I'm flattered if you believe I'm a psychic or something.

 

I just hope the change happens via scientific advance (more peacefully) than via revolution. Much more deaths that way.

 

 

 

Firstly, you're altering what you said, this is what you actually said:

 

You can argue semantics all you want your just proving that you're too stubborn to admit when your wrong.

 

I will not give in. I do not see these two are different. They mean the same. If they look different to you, I blame the language barrier.

Yeah, to me scientific leaps SEEM to occur peacefully

&

For some reason, only scientific giant leaps seem to occur peacefully.

 

 

You're ignoring the fact that someone would have to make the bomb and so forth. A science minded individual is required to design the bomb intended to kill people. I'm not talking about the discovery of splitting the atom I'm talking about scientists developing a bomb to kill people. For example think of a rocket scientist. Their job will be to get the correct trajectory for a rocket to hit a city killing people. How are they not implicated into the responsibility of that city's death when they know that the trajectory will be used to kill people.

Weather or not killing was right or wrong, their work is responsible for their deaths and that implicates them in the equation of responsibility.

 

 

Everyone building a bomb, who understand it will kill people, obviously are virtually responsibility on the deaths. The person who decides to fire the weapon at certain people carries the ultimate responsibility.

 

It is obvious that "ultimate responsibility" means that the politician or general is in the war crime tribunal, but how should this "virtual responsibility" (the level of guilt the bomb designers and manufacturers) manifest itself?

 

Okay, so Einstein should have been sent to prison because of the Hiroshima bombings?

 

Do note that the section I highlighted in the quote would mean that actually the TECHNICIANS who build the bomb would go to prison.

 

 

 

I never said they were. Their work obviously influences politics though. Look at global warming, scientists have had large impacts on policies. In this regard you could say they're political lobbyists to an extent. They are not separated from the rest of the world as you would seem to suggest.

 

Their work obviously influences everything in the society. But the politicians make the final call. And their decisions are often based on other factors than scientific ones. Politics, economics and so forth. I've watched in my country how politicians deal with experts opinion and I find it laughable to say that individual scientists are lobbyists. Maybe in your country the politicians really listen to the experts. Lobbyists are usually entities with money and power, I think. Corporations. They might be research institutions, but remember that politics come into play in those. In my country certain research institute prohibits its individual researchers from making public writings, which contradict institute policy. That's horrible, but describes well individual scientist in the rock and a hard place of politics.

 

No it isn't all clear. Yes it makes sense that going from poverty to middle class would make you happier. But this does not sustain happiness as you suggest.

 

As the Harward professor Gilbert suggests. I agree with him that if you get rid of poverty, you attain a basic happiness level, which lasts until you get lowered back into poverty. If think the stuff you present is related to increased happiness when already in the middleclass.

 

It's kinda silly actually. I'm basically talking about how scientific advances allow more resources to make people happy by raising them up from poverty. And you talk about scientific advances not bringing extra happiness to the already wealthy middleclass. I think we agree in these. :)


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is English your first language?

It's ridicules you're arguing you didn't say something when it's right there in front of you.

 

I did provide the source. Even with pretty colors. I will not delve in this more. I don't have the time to write everything again, so I'll copy-paste:

Note that my main point was not to go on about history, but the main point was to bring out the increase of peoples increased wealth when compared to those days. Technological adances have increased our materialistic welfare a lot since those days. You simply cannot deny that.

Your main point is that technology ended the Feudal system introducing the middle class which introduced big amounts of happiness... Do you even read what you write? You have no proof technology ended the Feudal system, if technology didn't end the Feudal system to introduce the middle class why are you arguing that this was the case and this will occur again in modern times?

 

Everyone building a bomb, who understand it will kill people, obviously are virtually responsibility on the deaths. The person who decides to fire the weapon at certain people carries the ultimate responsibility.

 

It is obvious that "ultimate responsibility" means that the politician or general is in the war crime tribunal, but how should this "virtual responsibility" (the level of guilt the bomb designers and manufacturers) manifest itself?

 

Okay, so Einstein should have been sent to prison because of the Hiroshima bombings?

 

Do note that the section I highlighted in the quote would mean that actually the TECHNICIANS who build the bomb would go to prison.

I'm not talking about legal responsibility I'm talking about moral responsibility.

 

Legally you could hold no responsibility but you should know your actions lead to his death how could that not haunt you?

 

But I see you seem to be coming around to the idea that scientists do hold a degree of responsibility for their creations, which is not what you started out saying.

 

As the Harward professor Gilbert suggests. I agree with him that if you get rid of poverty, you attain a basic happiness level, which lasts until you get lowered back into poverty. If think the stuff you present is related to increased happiness when already in the middleclass.

 

It's kinda silly actually. I'm basically talking about how scientific advances allow more resources to make people happy by raising them up from poverty. And you talk about scientific advances not bringing extra happiness to the already wealthy middleclass. I think we agree in these. :)

 

I agree it is silly that you think material possessions make one's life happy. Please give me some examples of material things you have that make you happy. I don't mean, happy while eating it, I mean makes your life happy. If you say your computer makes you happy I'm assuming you wake up and think 'Wow I sure am glad I have a computer in my life! :) Without it I'd be damn depressed!"

 

Their work obviously influences everything in the society. But the politicians make the final call. And their decisions are often based on other factors than scientific ones. Politics, economics and so forth. I've watched in my country how politicians deal with experts opinion and I find it laughable to say that individual scientists are lobbyists. Maybe in your country the politicians really listen to the experts. Lobbyists are usually entities with money and power, I think. Corporations. They might be research institutions, but remember that politics come into play in those. In my country certain research institute prohibits its individual researchers from making public writings, which contradict institute policy. That's horrible, but describes well individual scientist in the rock and a hard place of politics.

 

Go get a dictionary to define lobbyist. This must be your language barrier causing problems again:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lobbyist

Laughable? Maybe you don't know what that means either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is English your first language?

It's ridicules you're arguing you didn't say something when it's right there in front of you.

 

Nope. It is not, actually. But I can see the tone of your posts getting more aggressive. It is funny.

 

 

Your main point is that technology ended the Feudal system introducing the middle class which introduced big amounts of happiness... Do you even read what you write? You have no proof technology ended the Feudal system, if technology didn't end the Feudal system to introduce the middle class why are you arguing that this was the case and this will occur again in modern times?

 

Oh you're now picking my main points. No, told you just now what my main point was. Let's dig previous posts.

 

Look here:

The fruits science improves the lives of everyone. Think about it: in the medieval times there were the nobility (really small amount of people) and the peasants (really large amount of people). The resources were scarce. The noblitity had it all, the peasants had nothing (but work.)

 

Scientific achievements mean that more people now can live more abundant life than even the kings of the medieval era.

 

This breaks into following info-packets:

  • In the medieval times we had technology level x.
  • There has been a lot of time in between current time and the medieval times
  • Now the technology level is x+y.
  • This provides more fun to people.

It does not say

  • The medieval era was ended by technological advances.

 

But I see you seem to be coming around to the idea that scientists do hold a degree of responsibility for their creations, which is not what you started out saying.

 

Yeah, but what kind of responsibility I asked. Please tell me. What kind of responsibility in a practical level?

Of course as a human beings we should have the moral responsibility of all of our deeds. That is obvious.

 

Most of the scientists I know are humans and they do have the basic normal human behaviors. So scientists are not in any way above normal human moral responsibilities.

 

 

I agree it is silly that you think material possessions make one's life happy.

 

No. I said that getting up from poverty makes people happy. That has been said now many times. Why does the message not go through?

 

Laughable? Maybe you don't know what that means either.

 

This weird hostility may be an indication of lack of communication skills. Could you explain why you cannot communicate neutrally? Does offensive style give you some kind of sick satisfaction or do you think you're winning some kind of dispute contest by disdaining your fellow conversation partner. Weird strategy.:(

 

Surely you see how immature/childish that bolded section sounds like?


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one do not believe a tun of money can make people happy. My brother is a lawyer and has a flat-screen TV in every room in his apartment. He will soon be moving back to this town though, because it is too expensive to buy a home where he currently works and he is unhappy with his work hours. Sometimes he has to work until 8 PM or on the weekends. No amount of money would keep me working from 9 AM to 8 PM or on my supposed days off. His new job will be a straight 9-to-5 job, where he isn't expected to work so much off the clock.

 

I personally live on very limited resources and am happy. I've got a small apartment which is easy to clean, no one else living here but me, and plenty of free time.

 

As for material things, I don't have much. This 2008-era laptop is probably the nicest thing I've got and I do worry when I leave for extended periods of time. "Will I receive a visit from the "master thief" while I'm gone, or will the laptop still be there when I return?" Luckily I can throw it in a laptop backpack and take it with me so I don't have to worry. It ain't top of the line, but as long as it can run the things I want, it is good enough.

 

Back to the idea of generating good will with your customers:

I use a Magicjack to make long distance calls from my PC. I've got one long-distance friend that I call regularly, whom I met online a decade ago. Even though they sell you five years of service for $69, I will still pay $20 for only one year. This is because I appreciate the already excellent deal and I want to support them. $20 a year is already so cheap that it is no big deal. Compare this to the game industry, where I buy everything as cheaply as possible with no regard for the publishers. Again, a happy customer is a loyal customer. An unhappy customer is not loyal.

 

You may remember a service called DialPad from around 2000. It was a similar system that allowed you to make free PC-to-phone calls. It shut down though due to financial issues... even the advertising couldn't keep them going.

Edited by lost_soul

--- War does not decide who is right, war decides who is left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That has been said now many times. Why does the message not go through?

 

If it helps, you're not the only one this happens to. <_<

 

While I don't necessarily agree with all your points, I think you're stating them quite clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't necessarily agree with all your points, I think you're stating them quite clearly.

 

Ah, good to hear external view. Thanks, I was sure the text was understandable.

 

It is just more fun when people have different opinions, it always broadens my views when I chat with such people. But not in this case and I am too old for sandbox altercation. I wish I was younger... ;)

 

At any rate, I am not going to do same mistake twice.


Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This weird hostility may be an indication of lack of communication skills. Could you explain why you cannot communicate neutrally? Does offensive style give you some kind of sick satisfaction or do you think you're winning some kind of dispute contest by disdaining your fellow conversation partner. Weird strategy.:(

 

Surely you see how immature/childish that bolded section sounds like?

 

I'm being hostile because when I'm reading your posts I'm sensing hostility in them. When you say my thoughts or 'laughable' I interpret it as "wow you're really stupid." There's been some other things you've done too, I feel like I'm simply meeting you on your own level.

 

I think we can agree on a stalemate though :) I think people in poverty can be just as happy or happier than people in the middle class. I have personal experience with this growing up in an impoverished household and being blissfully happy then moving up to middle class and getting Nintendo 64, Playstation and fancier food which didn't make me any more happier at all it just entertained me for brief periods inducing temporary excitement at the prospect of getting a new game or candy etc. Instead of playing outside with friends you're inside playing Nintendo with friends. TBH I remember using my imagination being much funner than the N64...

 

If anyone is truly interested in the topics discussed in this thread, I suggest reading this book:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=dTGObbRFab0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is about corporation communication and management but it approaches it from a critical philosophical standpoint and uses a ton of different methods to analyze and interpret why things are as they are now. It's probably the best textbook I've ever read. Thought note the google version has missing pages all over the place -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book I linked, page 120, which is cut off in google books says this about marketing:

 

Critical Theory of Frankfurt School:

In this context, the needs which people think that they have for consumption goods reflect a society dominated by commodity fetishism. The problem is not simply that people are being persuaded to buy the 'wrong' products by the use of powerful advertising and marketing techniques. Rather the problem lies in the nature of a society where identity, status and subjectivity are intertwined with the purchase of goods and services on the market. Commodities are seen as things in themselves that can confer meaning and significance on people's lives. The fact that these commodities are produced by people in the first place is ignored and the commodity itself becomes worshiped and fetishized.

I love this book :)

 

continued:

 

In his classic discussion of these processes, Marcus stated that: "The people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment... The products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood' (1964: 24,26). The problem for Marcuse is how to provide a foundation for his understanding that some needs are 'false' while other are definition 'true.'

 

It goes on but I feel like I'm plagiarizing too much :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a very large difference difference between an inference that "money = happiness" and a statement of "technology improves quality of life." Living in poverty is not enjoyable. Skip the high-fi entertainment topic FFS, and instead talk about health and medicine. Technological advancements in that area (vaccines, cures, medication for managing serious/life threatening illness, pain relief, gene therapy, prosthetics, transplants, etc., etc., etc.) certainly make life more enjoyable for nearly everyone who enjoys the benefits. And that's just one area of advancement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...