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?

[MarxSchmarx]

What do you think about this serious matter?

I could not make heads or tails of most of your post, so I can&#39;t comment intelligently. <_<

But I tried:


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.

Bloody unlikely. I&#39;m yet to see a single major public health problem solved by stem-cell research. Doesn&#39;t mean it can&#39;t happen; it&#39;s just that stem-cell research is not a panacea.


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.

I don&#39;t know who McLuhan is, so I quibble with the subject and predicate of your opening line as he didn&#39;t make me aware of anything. I also quibble with the sub-clause that "technology is an extension of our self". Are nuclear weapons a technology of me? Is cassava cultivation an extension of me?

How does the ecosystem "protect us from our self"? AIDS? The plague? Earthquakes? Are the victims of natural disasters "self-healing" for the human race.?If so, funny the "self-healing" is done mostly by the poor and the dispossessed. And what the hey kind of insight is gained by calling everything a "gestalt", using a dictionary definition to boot?


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 on earth is "our" technology? Hybrid cars? A pencil? The internet?

And who does the evaluation? Right now, our corporate bosses and their subsidiary government. Shouldn&#39;t the debate be about who does the evaluation instead of whether there should be an evaluation&#33;?

Comrade, I beg of you, please lose the vague metaphors. Then your point will be considerably clearer.

[Zurdito]

success is killing us? sounds post-modern. I will second the request to lose the vague metaphors - the purpose of marxist writing is to clarify things. Never use more complex language or form than the point you are trying make requires you to use.

Technological progress is not part of the problem, in fact something that has the potetnial to solve our problems. However the control of the means of production by the bourgeoisie means that even when we see the benefit of technological progress, it&#39;s only as part of a structural relationship which permits us "trickle down" benefits from the development of the means of prodction as long as our structural opression is re-inforced by that same process.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by MarxSchmarx+--> (MarxSchmarx)Bloody unlikely. I&#39;m yet to see a single major public health problem solved by stem-cell research. Doesn&#39;t mean it can&#39;t happen; it&#39;s just that stem-cell research is not a panacea.[/b]
A major problem may not have been solved by stem cell research yet- but given research and funding it could turn out to be a new technology for medicines and vaccines- or a more destructive use could be found. Technology is always more important than war because it is technology that decides how wars are fough in the first place.


Originally posted by MarxSchmarx+--> (MarxSchmarx)I don&#39;t know who McLuhan is, so I quibble with the subject and predicate of your opening line as he didn&#39;t make me aware of anything. I also quibble with the sub-clause that "technology is an extension of our self". Are nuclear weapons a technology of me? Is cassava cultivation an extension of me?[/b]
If you build them yourself and use them, yes- a nuclear weapon weapon is an extension of yourself- though if you weren&#39;t the one to build it, it&#39;s more like someone else&#39;s extension of self you took from them to use, kinda like beating someone with their own arm. The arm is not a part of you- it was a part of them... until you removed it... is any of this getting through? Lol.


Originally posted by MarxSchmarx
How does the ecosystem "protect us from our self"? AIDS? The plague? Earthquakes? Are the victims of natural disasters "self-healing" for the human race.?If so, funny the "self-healing" is done mostly by the poor and the dispossessed. And what the hey kind of insight is gained by calling everything a "gestalt", using a dictionary definition to boot?

What on earth is "our" technology? Hybrid cars? A pencil? The internet?
I don&#39;t think thats what he meant- more like how fresh rivers bring clean water, how the ozone layer keeps heat close to the earth that came from the sun, how corn grows, etc. As for what technology is, I consider it to be anything you can build.


[email protected]
And who does the evaluation? Right now, our corporate bosses and their subsidiary government. Shouldn&#39;t the debate be about who does the evaluation instead of whether there should be an evaluation&#33;?
On the contrary, one should think about whether they&#39;re going to do something first before they think about how it should be done. If you sit in a chair for two hours and think about how to go somewhere downtown and then decide you don&#39;t want to go- then you just wasted two hours of your life didn&#39;t you?


MarxSchmarx
Comrade, I beg of you, please lose the vague metaphors. Then your point will be considerably clearer.
Agreed with all due respects.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:49 pm
Technological progress is not part of the problem, in fact something that has the potetnial to solve our problems. However the control of the means of production by the bourgeoisie means that even when we see the benefit of technological progress, it&#39;s only as part of a structural relationship which permits us "trickle down" benefits from the development of the means of prodction as long as our structural opression is re-inforced by that same process.
Me thinks that before we view technology as a proponent of capital, the modes of production, and the mercantile world, we should first look into technology&#39;s effects on our humanity. Do new technological breakthroughs like stem cell research, cloning, and new methods of mass production rob us of our very humanity? This is a core question we must always ask before we go into how we can exploit said new technological breakthrough.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 11, 2007 02:42 am--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 11, 2007 02:42 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 08:49 pm
Technological progress is not part of the problem, in fact something that has the potetnial to solve our problems. However the control of the means of production by the bourgeoisie means that even when we see the benefit of technological progress, it&#39;s only as part of a structural relationship which permits us "trickle down" benefits from the development of the means of prodction as long as our structural opression is re-inforced by that same process.
Me thinks that before we view technology as a proponent of capital, the modes of production, and the mercantile world, we should first look into technology&#39;s effects on our humanity. Do new technological breakthroughs like stem cell research, cloning, and new methods of mass production rob us of our very humanity? This is a core question we must always ask before we go into how we can exploit said new technological breakthrough. [/b]
As far as I can tell, our nature is simply defined by material conditions and social relations. As these factors progress, they change our nature. Technological progress is just an extention of that and it will inevitably change our nature continually as it marches on. As our diets change, as our entire way of life changes, our bodies chemical composition and physical development changes.

I&#39;ll give you an example - a peasant in the 15th century raised on locally grown food and outdoors manual work would be significatnly physically different to a 1950&#39;s industrial worker raised on tinned food and who never saw sunlight, who would be physically very different to you or I - and as all we are is a bag of chemicals, then our "nature" is defined by such things - especially as those technological processes are also inseperable from the progress of social relations as a whole (there could be no mass cities without tinned food for example). This progress is not bound by some stationary "morality" or respect for qualities supposedly inherent in "humanity": progress needs no justification, it just happens, and human nature is developed through this process rather than defining it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by coberst
The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished.

What do you mean by this? How are the "aims of technology" (whatever they are&#33;) related to our allegedly "diminished" survival?


McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self.

Who is McLuhan, and why should we listen to anything he has to say?


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 would say you were spouting gibberish.


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.

You can read the dictionary, well done.


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.

Your point being?


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.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone&#39;s got one.


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.

So why don&#39;t you discuss these issues, rather than making aimless topics that are high in verbosity but low in content?


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.

That&#39;s not how human endeavour works, and I see no reason why it should be different this time round. We had no regulatory committees when we invented agriculture, and the Industrial Revolution survived it&#39;s Luddites. Human progress is slow, disorganised and not without accidents, but it is inexorable.

Progress in fact, defines humanity, and to deny progress is to deny our humanity.


What do you think about this serious matter?

I think it is a topic for greater minds than yours.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Zurdito+November 11, 2007 05:37 am--> (Zurdito @ November 11, 2007 05:37 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:42 am

[email protected] 09, 2007 08:49 pm
Technological progress is not part of the problem, in fact something that has the potetnial to solve our problems. However the control of the means of production by the bourgeoisie means that even when we see the benefit of technological progress, it&#39;s only as part of a structural relationship which permits us "trickle down" benefits from the development of the means of prodction as long as our structural opression is re-inforced by that same process.
Me thinks that before we view technology as a proponent of capital, the modes of production, and the mercantile world, we should first look into technology&#39;s effects on our humanity. Do new technological breakthroughs like stem cell research, cloning, and new methods of mass production rob us of our very humanity? This is a core question we must always ask before we go into how we can exploit said new technological breakthrough.
As far as I can tell, our nature is simply defined by material conditions and social relations. As these factors progress, they change our nature. Technological progress is just an extention of that and it will inevitably change our nature continually as it marches on. As our diets change, as our entire way of life changes, our bodies chemical composition and physical development changes.

I&#39;ll give you an example - a peasant in the 15th century raised on locally grown food and outdoors manual work would be significatnly physically different to a 1950&#39;s industrial worker raised on tinned food and who never saw sunlight, who would be physically very different to you or I - and as all we are is a bag of chemicals, then our "nature" is defined by such things - especially as those technological processes are also inseperable from the progress of social relations as a whole (there could be no mass cities without tinned food for example). This progress is not bound by some stationary "morality" or respect for qualities supposedly inherent in "humanity": progress needs no justification, it just happens, and human nature is developed through this process rather than defining it. [/b]
Well, yes, technological progress can be considered an extension of the self, but what happens when we go to far? Technology and Progress can be attributed to the creation of the hydrogen and atomic bombs, chemical warfare, and many other inventions that have and shall continue to put our planet in peril. Yes, progress like mass production can be good- but can we got too far just to obtain optimal material conditions? How do we know what too far is?

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 11, 2007 02:37 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 11, 2007 02:37 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:37 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:42 am

[email protected] 09, 2007 08:49 pm
Technological progress is not part of the problem, in fact something that has the potetnial to solve our problems. However the control of the means of production by the bourgeoisie means that even when we see the benefit of technological progress, it&#39;s only as part of a structural relationship which permits us "trickle down" benefits from the development of the means of prodction as long as our structural opression is re-inforced by that same process.
Me thinks that before we view technology as a proponent of capital, the modes of production, and the mercantile world, we should first look into technology&#39;s effects on our humanity. Do new technological breakthroughs like stem cell research, cloning, and new methods of mass production rob us of our very humanity? This is a core question we must always ask before we go into how we can exploit said new technological breakthrough.
As far as I can tell, our nature is simply defined by material conditions and social relations. As these factors progress, they change our nature. Technological progress is just an extention of that and it will inevitably change our nature continually as it marches on. As our diets change, as our entire way of life changes, our bodies chemical composition and physical development changes.

I&#39;ll give you an example - a peasant in the 15th century raised on locally grown food and outdoors manual work would be significatnly physically different to a 1950&#39;s industrial worker raised on tinned food and who never saw sunlight, who would be physically very different to you or I - and as all we are is a bag of chemicals, then our "nature" is defined by such things - especially as those technological processes are also inseperable from the progress of social relations as a whole (there could be no mass cities without tinned food for example). This progress is not bound by some stationary "morality" or respect for qualities supposedly inherent in "humanity": progress needs no justification, it just happens, and human nature is developed through this process rather than defining it.
Well, yes, technological progress can be considered an extension of the self, but what happens when we go to far? Technology and Progress can be attributed to the creation of the hydrogen and atomic bombs, chemical warfare, and many other inventions that have and shall continue to put our planet in peril. Yes, progress like mass production can be good- but can we got too far just to obtain optimal material conditions? How do we know what too far is? [/b]
There is nothing wrong with the technology behind an atomic bomb itself, the only problem is the contol of that technology by the bourgeoisie which slants this development towards their benefit and our opression. But we weren&#39;t less opressed before these developments,a nd in fact those tools can be used by us for our liberation from all our problems during and after a revolution.

[PigmerikanMao]

I think you&#39;re missing my point- I&#39;m not trying to say what effects technology has on class struggle, but what it has on humanity- a concept far larger than class antagonisms. A people&#39;s war, a worker&#39;s movement, and all other struggles are rendered pointless if how we fight in them robs us not only of our humanity- but of our planet as well.

[coberst]

NoXion

The bomb and pollution are examples of technology diminishing our survivability while satisfying the aims of technology.

Marshall McLuhan was a very insightful person. You might read “Understanding Media”.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:25 pm
NoXion

The bomb and pollution are examples of technology diminishing our survivability while satisfying the aims of technology.

Marshall McLuhan was a very insightful person. You might read “Understanding Media”.
Pigmerikan and coberst: the bomb is just an extension of the stick - and humans would have made no progress from one system of production to another without weapons.. The only problem is whose hands the technology is in. If the bomb is used to win a final war against capitalism, it will increase our living standards in the long run. Also the concept of "humanity" existing outside of class relations is flawed, because a human&#39;s very nature is defined by their relation to society and material conditions. There is no "humanity" which supersedes class antagonisms or the system of production - humans after capitalism will be different to humans living under capitalism, and certain things our society views as "inherent" won&#39;t be seen that way by them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by coberst+--> (coberst)NoXion

The bomb and pollution are examples of technology diminishing our survivability while satisfying the aims of technology.[/b]

Technology only diminishes survivability if it is unevenly distributed. Notice how long people in the developed world live in spite of living around polluting cars most of their lives, while those in the developing world, who do not have the same level of access to advanced medical care, don&#39;t live so long.

What are the "aims" of technology?


Zurdito
If the bomb is used to win a final war against capitalism, it will increase our living standards in the long run.

The ends do not justify the means. I suggest you think very carefully about what you have just said.

[Zurdito]

"The ends justify the means if there is something that justifies the end"

- Leon Trotsky

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:51 pm
"The ends justify the means if there is something that justifies the end"

- Leon Trotsky
Try doing your own thinking for a change, and not letting decades-dead Russian politicos do it for you. Trotsky&#39;s maxim was followed in the 20th century, and that resulted in being the most needlessly bloody century in human history.

Here, let me lead you by the hand - nukes are high yield explosives, with a wide area of effect. Since we don&#39;t yet have any kind of shield technology yet, and are unlikely to for some considerable time, it follows that nuclear weapons are more likely to be used as area effect weapons than for cracking hardened targets. Since the days of large ground armies are history, the only targets that cover large areas are civilian, such as cities.

Now, cities are not monolithic hives full of identical drones. They are massive melting pots, full of all different ethnicities and classes. Nuking such targets is not only morally reprehensible, it is a form of anthropocide - a self-destructive and irrational act of the most devastating kind.

Well done. You have just justified nuking cities full of civilians in the name of progress. You&#39;ve outdone Hitler himself. Consider yourself a monster of the highest calibre.

And that is why the ends do not always justify the means.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:51 pm
"The ends justify the means if there is something that justifies the end"

- Leon Trotsky
Yeah, the Russian Nihilists were all about that. Now lets see where did they end up... :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion, if you actually read the context of Trotsky&#39;s comment, you will see he takes care of that superficial objection.

That does not validate this &#39;principle&#39;, but it is not susceptible to the hackneyed objection you have rehearsed, even if it is finally to be rejected on other grounds.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/19...rals/morals.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm)

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by NoXion+November 13, 2007 06:10 pm--> (NoXion &#064; November 13, 2007 06:10 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 10:51 pm
"The ends justify the means if there is something that justifies the end"

- Leon Trotsky
Try doing your own thinking for a change, and not letting decades-dead Russian politicos do it for you. Trotsky&#39;s maxim was followed in the 20th century, and that resulted in being the most needlessly bloody century in human history.

Here, let me lead you by the hand - nukes are high yield explosives, with a wide area of effect. Since we don&#39;t yet have any kind of shield technology yet, and are unlikely to for some considerable time, it follows that nuclear weapons are more likely to be used as area effect weapons than for cracking hardened targets. Since the days of large ground armies are history, the only targets that cover large areas are civilian, such as cities.

Now, cities are not monolithic hives full of identical drones. They are massive melting pots, full of all different ethnicities and classes. Nuking such targets is not only morally reprehensible, it is a form of anthropocide - a self-destructive and irrational act of the most devastating kind.

Well done. You have just justified nuking cities full of civilians in the name of progress. You&#39;ve outdone Hitler himself. Consider yourself a monster of the highest calibre.

And that is why the ends do not always justify the means. [/b]

If the means make the end impossible by making half the planet radioactive, then clearly neither I nor Trotsky would consider them justified, would we? Try to consider the "ends" n question - liberation for the international working class and a sustainable centrally planned global economy to meet everyone&#39;s needs. The global situation being what it is, I obviously wouldn&#39;t justify some random dirty bomb attack on New York. But the point is that you have no idea what specific forms the future will take. Responses therefore must be contextual. So to give absolute meaning to a method in itself is pointless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Correct Z; ends and means for Trotsky were not separate issues. Certain means would destroy (or indermine) the ends one sought, while others would fail to achieve them. Still others, the mass of workers would not accept.

Now, how one is to ascertain the correct means to the ends Trotsky sought, he left rather vague.

But that is not the least bit surprising, since each revolutionary situation could not help but throw up new challenges, and it would require serious thought and discussion before suitable means were decided upon (by the mass of workers).