| Author |
Topic:
Progress
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
7/7 11:19am
Subject:
Progress
|
Mankind. Used to be in harmony with nature, then started inventing stuff that harms nature. We're eating up the earth at a rapid pace. Some people call the stacking inventions progress; I'm not so sure. One could call it regression; away from nature, onto extermination. If ever we reach the stars, will we do the same thing? Will we use them up? Are we a pest, or a blessing?
We have invented stuff to make people walk when they're missing a leg, we've invented cars and boats and planes to roam the earth. But we have also invented weapons of mass destruction and we're making entire species extinct.
I remember a TV show from 1980, that talked about the recession, and one person said "The government wants us to buy things so there won't be a recession, but what can we buy? We already have everything!" And this was before VCRs entered our homes... We keep on inventing stuff that we then tell ourselves, we need. But do we?
In short: is progress good?
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth-Ghost
Registered:
Oct '03
|
Date Posted:
7/7 12:25pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
Progress doesn't have to be destructive, as I think we're finally starting to learn. We just have to be more mindful and design things with long-term planning, like redesigning our infrastructure and transportation into being more energy-efficient and enviromentally-friendly. Our culture will have to change a little, but progress doesn't have to be bad, right now it's a mix.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/7 12:35pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
SuperWatto posted:
Mankind. Used to be in harmony with nature, then started inventing stuff that harms nature.
No. Anything that exists is part of nature. Anything humanity invents is part of nature and part of the natural cycle. Tool use does not break the rules of evolution, it is a behavior which has been selected for by normal evolutionary processes.
We are not circumventing anything. Our actions are not and cannot be in opposition to nature, because "nature" includes all our actions.
Whether or not our tool use will end up being a successful adaptation in the long run is a question worth discussing, but there's nothing different or unique or special about it.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/7 2:05pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
- Date Edited:
7/7 2:05pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Mass consumer culture isn't a terribly good measure of human progress, considering the relatively small percentage of the world's population that really gets to enjoy it. A few million super-haves, a billion haves, and more than 5 billion have nots.
Another common progress measure is the highest level of technology achieved by the richest society at its peak: giant social/technology projects like the invention of nuclear weapons and civil nuclear power, space programs, massive engineering projects, the Internet, etc.
A less common yardstick would be how broadly the population as a whole fulfills basic human needs of its individuals for food, water, clothing, shelter, then education, health care, retirement support. You can look at life expectancy and infant mortality rates.
The National Science Foundation's World Values Survey attempted to rank countries by the happiness of their populations. It seems that money buys happiness.
A science fiction writer might say that humans have not progressed until we've spread our seed across the galaxy. "Progress" depends on saving ourselves from early extinction by putting our eggs in other planetary and star system baskets. Let's just say this one is much easier talked about than accomplished. Right now, we've made close to zero progress on this front in the grand scheme of things. We have not even successfully procreated on the surface of the moon, let alone Mars, let alone the next star system over.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
7/7 2:20pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
diz posted:
No.
Note I didn´t say mankind opposes nature, but harms it - at least, in the way we know. I agree that anything we do or make is natural, up to nuclear plants and plastic. That's not the point though;
diz posted:
Whether or not our tool use will end up being a successful adaptation in the long run
is the point.
And the question also is: what is 'succesful'? And succesful to whom?
Jabba posted:
A science fiction writer might say that humans have not progressed until we've spread our seed across the galaxy.
That might not be good for the galaxy, though. But then again, what is 'good'?
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
king_alvarez
Registered:
May '07
|
Date Posted:
7/7 7:10pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
|
Measuring progress implies the existence of a specific goal. Does humanity, life, or nature have a specific goal? I'm not so sure it does. "Reduce suffering" seems to me to be a pretty noble goal for humanity, but it is by no means an objective goal.
-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Tactic_Thrawn
Registered:
Jul '06
|
Date Posted:
7/9 3:25pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
"In short, is progress good?"
In the sense you're using the term, 'progress' is neither good nor bad. To use Star Warsy analogies, progress is similar to the Force. Progress can be good (as you've pointed out) and bad (as you've pointed out). What decides whether progress is good or bad is what progress people chose to develop.
(The use of 'progress' in this thread seems roughly synonymous with technology).
-----signature-----
What's Christianity? John 3:16. Simple as that. Personally happen to be a Christian. That's not remotely the same as a *perfect* Christian. http://scifi4.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi-Washington
Registered:
Aug '03
|
Date Posted:
7/9 11:16pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
Yes, this sounds like a criticism of technology more than "progress." Lets take a look at the definitions for the noun at least:
1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage: the progress of a student toward a degree.
2. developmental activity in science, technology, etc., esp. with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created.
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement: He shows progress in his muscular coordination.
5. the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.
6. Biology. increasing differentiation and perfection in the course of ontogeny or phylogeny.
7. forward or onward movement: the progress of the planets.
8. the forward course of action, events, time, etc.
9. an official journey or tour, as by a sovereign or dignitary.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progress
There are so many ways to interpret the word progress it's hard to really put a finger on what it is. From the stand point of Progress being technology, I think it is good. It makes our lives easier so we can focus on larger concepts and reaching out to other worlds. Until we can work out the issues on earth, this will take a while though.
-----signature-----
Whee!
[Insert insperational quote from clichéd book or movie]
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
7/10 4:09pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
I meant #2, of course:
"developmental activity in science, technology, etc., esp. with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created."
And there's so many things in there to discuss.
Material well-being? Are we only doing well if we have enough baubles?
Are we feeling better, overall, than people did a hundred years ago?
And is the well-being of the public the only thing to take into account - even at the cost of everything else?
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/10 7:12pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
I've met millionaries who are miserable curmudgeons and also ones who are very generous and happy.
It makes me think that some people pursue wealth and "stuff" for all the wrong reasons, as an end in and of themselves, while others don't get trapped by it but use it as a tool.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
7/11 1:17am
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
Well you first have to agree what you mean by "progress" which it looks like everyone is just using what they think it means.
The most laughable idea is that we should be measured in how far away from Earth we go. We need to figure out how we can live here with our environment before we try and run off into space. I think space travel is cool and all, but using rockets to send the super-rich on joy rides so they can have sex in space or whatever they do up there just isn't a big priority for me and most of the world.
Going into space for the purpose of colonization isn't going to improve our lives. And if you watched enough science fiction you would have known that. And that is leaving out all the aliens and transdimentional creatures just waiting to come here and kill us.
I don't agree with the way diz frames things, we have to have a word for the areas we haven't adapted for our comfort, nature is just as good as any. To muddle it up by equating our homes with nests just gets confusing.
Also I believe one of the biggest threats we face is from so called "conservationists" who want to remove all human activity from the greatest "natural" ateas. The only way we are supposed to see "nature" (or whatever you want to call it diz) is by long hikes, but we have to make sure even then we don't get too many or they might leave some trash on the trail.
The best way to conserve our natural environments is to help people use and enjoy them as much as possible. This way we will always have the will to keep them. If you turn our national parks into places where only researchers and hippies can go, nobody is going to want to bother protecting them.
Also I was watching a documentary on the Glen Canyon Dam on the local PBS station. They have the 20 guys who had bothered to hike a part of the hundreds of miles it took up complaining about all that was lost, but totally ignoring the tens of millions who have enjoyed a place they never would have without the dam. Now there are some good reasons for shutting down the dam now, but there were a great many benefits to weigh against the environmental and historical costs of building the thing.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/11 6:37am
Subject:
RE: Progress
- Date Edited:
7/11 6:41am (4 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
Going into space for the purpose of colonization isn't going to improve our lives. And if you watched enough science fiction you would have known that. And that is leaving out all the aliens and transdimentional creatures just waiting to come here and kill us.
A science fiction writer would tell you the reason we should try to colonize space is not to improve our lives per se but to improve the odds of our long term survivability as a species. The sun's days are numbered. We only have a few billion years to find a new home.
By then, we may have become beings of pure energy living in some of the spare folded-up dimensions allowed for in string theory. That would be a great solution. And talk about progress!
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Cheveyo
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
7/11 8:02am
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
Jabbadabbado posted:
A science fiction writer would tell you the reason we should try to colonize space is not to improve our lives per se but to improve the odds of our long term survivability as a species. The sun's days are numbered. We only have a few billion years to find a new home.
And who's to say that we are meant to outlive the sun?
I find it a little humorous (in a depressing way) that we argue over whether or not our path of technological progress is successful or harmful. What does our path of progress represent right now, and at what cost do we buy it? Weigh the pros and cons, and you'll have your personal answer. Some people are willing to "pay" more than others, so everyone's answer is bound to be different.
My own answer: We've paid far too much for far too little.
-----signature-----
I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/11 8:19am
Subject:
RE: Progress
- Date Edited:
7/11 8:20am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
And who's to say that we are meant to outlive the sun?
That would be the issue: are we in control of our ultimate destiny as a species? One perfectly adequate definition of human progress might be the extent to which we can gain influence over our ultimate destiny as a species.
What kind of obstacles are in the way of our long term survival?
1. We're stuck on earth.
This sobering fact puts us (our species survival) at the mercy of any number of likely and unlikely events including:
human caused:
- resource depletion
- environmental degredation
- overpopulation
- species-killing warfare through nuclear or biological weapons
non human caused
- asteroid impact (short term)
- death of the solar system (medium term)
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
7/11 1:17pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
|
Espal posted:
We need to figure out how we can live here with our environment before we try and run off into space.
I agree, but can we?
Far as I can tell, humans are too self-centered for that, in the short-term sense. We pretend to listen to Al Gore, but meanwhile we don't want to give up on the toys that come with a Happy Meal.
Espal posted:
I think space travel is cool and all, but using rockets to send the super-rich on joy rides so they can have sex in space or whatever they do up there just isn't a big priority for me and most of the world
... And that could be construed as an example of this short-term self-centeredness. Space exploration is about more than sending billionaires up. Just because you don't have the means, doesn't mean we should give up on all the scientific experiments conducted on the ISS.
Espal posted:
The best way to conserve our natural environments is to help people use and enjoy them as much as possible.
That's going to be really hard, and perhaps impossible. First, any and all waste needs to become at least recyclable, if not entirely biocompatible. Then, how are you going to keep the animals around in their natural habitat? Or are you suggesting the animals would need to adapt? Most animals in the wild are afraid of people. How are you going to manage that?
Jabba posted:
By then, we may have become beings of pure energy living in some of the spare folded-up dimensions allowed for in string theory.
Someone's been reading Stephen Baxter!
Still, if we manage to forestall the end time, is that good? we could be preventing a new universe from being born...
Cheveyn posted:
I find it a little humorous (in a depressing way) that we argue over whether or not our path of technological progress is successful or harmful.
We're arguing? I thought we were just exchanging ideas... And I think this is one of the most interesting dilemmas of all.
Jabba posted:
One perfectly adequate definition of human progress might be the extent to which we can gain influence over our ultimate destiny as a species.
Then we're at 0 now, aren't we?
And what if that progress can only come about by destroying many other things, is that really progress, or just a trade-off?
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/11 1:56pm
Subject:
RE: Progress
- Date Edited:
7/11 1:57pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
SuperWatto posted:
And what if that progress can only come about by destroying many other things, is that really progress, or just a trade-off?
Humans are making these choices all the time, even if they aren't making them consciously or conscientiously. One thing about progress, people equate the well being of individual humans with the progress of the species as a whole, and those two things may not be equal.
For example, what if the long term survival and progress of the species would be best served if about 6 billion humans were killed off tomorrow, or as soon as possible? If one goal of progress is to give everyone a relatively comfortable and modern and technologically advanced standard of living while not also denuding the planet of resources, probably the human population ought to be kept below a billion, permanently. That would mean killing off six sevenths of the population and then limiting the rights of the remaining humans to reproduce.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
