Our success is killing us

[coberst]

Our success is killing us

 

The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.

 

McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.

 

The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.

 

In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war.” Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.

 

The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.

 

We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.

 

What do you think about this serious matter?

[Phi for All]

I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.

I think this is an inaccurate assumption that places your argument on the shaky foundation of a False Dilemma. The conclusions you are drawing are based on the assumption that we and our ecosystem can't adapt quickly enough to keep pace with technology and I don't think you've given much evidence of that.

[ParanoiA]

How is the ecosystem a gestalt? It's properties ARE derivative of the summation of its parts isn't it?

 

And how can a component of a gestalt act externally to it? One could argue that the ecosystem is built with properties that guarantee equilibrium - just not recognizable to what you're accustomed to.

[coberst]

How is the ecosystem a gestalt? It's properties ARE derivative of the summation of its parts isn't it?

 

And how can a component of a gestalt act externally to it? One could argue that the ecosystem is built with properties that guarantee equilibrium - just not recognizable to what you're accustomed to.

 

It seems to me that an ecosystem is "a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts."

 

I think this is an inaccurate assumption that places your argument on the shaky foundation of a False Dilemma. The conclusions you are drawing are based on the assumption that we and our ecosystem can't adapt quickly enough to keep pace with technology and I don't think you've given much evidence of that.

 

How well have we adapted to atomic bomb technoogy? MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is a pretty lame adaptation.

 

How well have we adapted to the destruction of our planet by the polution introduced by our technology? Global warming is the answer.

[Mr Skeptic]

How well have we adapted to atomic bomb technoogy? MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is a pretty lame adaptation.

 

Well, I'm quite glad that there haven't been any big wars since the atomic era. How can you say MAD is a lame adaptation when it has worked so well thus far?

 

How well have we adapted to the destruction of our planet by the polution introduced by our technology? Global warming is the answer.

 

I thought global warming was the problem.

[Phi for All]

How well have we adapted to atomic bomb technoogy? MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is a pretty lame adaptation.

Are you kidding me?! Our adaptation to the age of nuclear weaponry has been one of our greatest successes. Do you realize how significant it is that we're still here? I wonder how many other civilizations in the universe (if there is sentient extraterrestrial life) reach this point and end up vaporized? We're not out of the woods yet but we've survived for sixty years with the knowledge that we can wipe out our species. It's still scary but it's not as scary as the USSR and the USA playing "mine's bigger" on a daily basis.

How well have we adapted to the destruction of our planet by the polution introduced by our technology? Global warming is the answer.

The questions are being raised. We'll see if we can adapt in time. Your point would have merit if no one was talking about it.