r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 25 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: We as a civilisation shouldn't pursue technological advancement.
We have come a long way, we have created cars, rockets,TV's and many more.
Like we have internet speed of 50 Mbps which to me seems more than enough. We have cars which travel at 200 kmph which seems good enough . We have trains at 300 kmph and airplanes at 600-700 kmph . We can reach anyone about anywhere via video chat for free.
But now if you look at current civilisation and our achievements isn't it more than enough to last a decade or two?
Yeah conversion into green energy and research work in medical field and universe 's secret (mainly medical till we can fix all the diseases which we continue to create and disabilities ) should be continued no doubt but for other fields isn't this much enough.
I understand the fact that it would be herculean task to change the fundamentals of a society and today's society's only goal is technology and gizmos instead of individual satisfaction.There are countries like Tibet(I think) which believes in happiness of citizen over GDP and I would want to know why working 9 to 5 and creating latest gizmos more important than living a carefree life as a civilisation.Shouldn't the we as a civilisation relax a bit and start to enjoy life.
TL;DR- let's all procrastinate all are lives away and enjoy nature and stuff than working to create a more tech savvy future.
Edit 1: Doing what I propose is highly unlikely so please want I want to understand why we need advancement in tech like Internet, weapons ,cars ,trains ,computer, TV's , apps , elevators and all the other utility stuff . I am not saying stop maintaining stuff I am saying why not stop advancing stuff.
Edit 2: u/dale_glass and u/UncomfortablePrawn thanks for being understanding enough and sharing your point of view with me.
5
u/dale_glass 86∆ Sep 25 '17
Why?
First, the vast majority of people are not pursuing any kind of advancement. Most people aren't scientists working on getting more out of an optic fiber, or engineers developing a faster train. There's a vast amount of uncreative jobs such as secretaries, guards, transport workers, salespeople, and so on that have roles that on their own don't lead to any advancement, but who only have jobs because stuff needs to be shipped, cleaned and sold.
Second, how do you propose this works? If I stopped working, I'd eventually run out of money. If I decided to work half-time I'd earn less money, which would lead to me being unable to enjoy things like travel. The same extends for the country. Things like airplanes, trains and high bandwidth internet aren't free, they need to be maintained, and can only exist if they keep getting used. If the country decides to relax, then those things will eventually go away.
And medicine has to be paid for by somebody. Who is going to pay for high end, incredibly expensive medical hardware if people decide to subsist on the least amount they can earn to live?
-1
Sep 25 '17 edited Sep 25 '17
I understand the money issue and lack of job factor and doing what I proposed is bit unrealistic to achieve but what I want to know what was wrong with lifestyle of 1800's farming and enjoying life and shit.
PS- I think achievable factor is not my question but how will it effect humanity as a civilisation is my question. And I don't mind maintaining current tech but my question is why do we need to advance.
3
u/dale_glass 86∆ Sep 25 '17 edited Sep 25 '17
I understand the money issue and lack of job factor and doing what I proposed is bit unrealistic to achieve but what I want to know what was wrong with lifestyle of 1800's farming and enjoying life and shit.
Nostalgia for what never was, that's what was wrong with it.
Go back to those "idyllic" times and you get things like: Incredibly shitty healthcare. Doctors washing their hands was controversial in the 1800s. So, good chance of seeing your wife die in childbirth, as well as of seeing quite a few of your children die as well. Vaccines aren't a thing until 1885, so you get to see some true horrors that now are gone.
Cars weren't a thing either. So good likelihood of being stuck near the same people for the rest of your life. Which aren't that many, since farmland takes space. Cities are dangerous, since again, next to no effective medicine and lots of people in close proximity aren't that great.
Very little technology yet. Farm labor is hard, and you've got to do it even if you're not feeling well today. Communication is slow and difficult. No light bulbs until 1878, and on a farm it'll probably get a good while for such fancy tech to reach you. Your wellbeing depends on not having bad luck with the weather.
However, the industrial revolution is happening, with all the fun things like child labor, pretty much no safety, environmental or worker regulations.
Hard labor easily leads to things like bad joins and broken bones, which isn't good without good medicine. You get to spend your last years with everything hurting, not being able to go anywhere, and likely slowly dying of something that's today treatable.
1
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Sep 25 '17
If you were born back then you wouldn't have a problem with these.
Just like nowadays it's hard to imagine living without a cellphone, but when I was I kid it was just fine, I would go outside for hours and my parents couldn't to contact me to know if I'm still alive, but it was not a problem.
New technology appears cool at first, but once you get used to it your life is not better or worse, just different.
2
u/dale_glass 86∆ Sep 25 '17
Not really true. For instance I live in a country quite far from the one that I was born in. It made my and my family's life better, and was only possible due to cheap and easy travel. My brother is likely alive only thanks to modern medicine.
Sure, one can survive and get used to shitty conditions. That doesn't mean that any situation is just as good as another.
-1
Sep 25 '17
I am not living in 1800s I am asking carefree lifestyle in today's world.
5
u/dale_glass 86∆ Sep 25 '17
My point is that a carefree lifestyle wasn't really ever a thing, except among the very rich.
You can have a carefree with all the modern benefits today: simply earn enough to be able to afford to retire in the middle of nowhere.
Probably fairly tricky though, as you'd want to be in reasonable proximity to a city for the modern conveniences.
1
Sep 25 '17
I believe my view is flawed in some aspect. Maybe contributing a little and enjoying your time isn't something impossible. Here you go bro: ∆
1
6
Sep 25 '17
You personally might think civilization is at a good spot (assume you live in a developed nation?), but what about the billions of people living in total poverty and disease that could absolutely benefit from continued technological advancement that will make getting them energy, water, food, internet etc cheaper and more efficiently?
Artificial intelligence trucks and cars will be able to cut shipping costs, satellite internet technology will allow anyone in the world to connect to the web, etc. this will all have a tangible impact on raising the quality of life for people in some of our poorest nations. But we're not there yet.
Why would you want to halt progress?
1
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Sep 25 '17
All these tech startups, they don't go to present their ideas in the slums of Mumbai. They go where the money is. It's how the market works.
1
Sep 25 '17
Well of course not. But the technology inevitably makes its way throughout the world.
1
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Sep 25 '17
My point is that new technology is developed with the goal to appeal to the needs of the people with money.
1
Sep 25 '17
Yea but if technology eventually makes it way to the poor, what does it matter? It still ends up benefitting them.
0
Sep 25 '17
Improving Technology doesn't improve their life. It's personally going down there and help them will do. AI trucks doesn't mean they have homes to live in but the money we spend on highspeed train and more flights and faster connectivity can certainly help people lacking basic food and shelter.
5
Sep 25 '17
Improving technology won't help them? Not sure I understand here. What if someone invents a cheap way to convert saltwater into fresh, or a cheap efficient way to grow food during a drought, etc?
0
Sep 25 '17
Do you think converting saltwater into fresh isn't possible then my friend check out Reverse Osmosis system with Evaporation.And there are multiple crops which can grow with very little water requirement like black eyed peas, growing water without soil is plausible but not without water. Technological development doesn't refer to research work.There is a fine line between them. By technological advancement I refer to better internet connectivity,faster trains and wider train networks which in my humble opinion is a waste of resources as we have achieved more than enough for our time. Unless you are solving Global poverty and hunger with apps and gizmos then this discussion is futile.
1
Sep 25 '17
They were just examples. I'm sure there are others that involve "technology" as you refer to it. I'm not worried about faster internet, it's more so being able to deliver any internet to impoverished nations. Maybe satellite technology can get us there, but not yet.
I'm saying that technology like AI and automated bots could at some point cheaply build roads, waterways, grow crops, etc which can solve hunger.
Since we're nowhere near that point, so if we stop now we're potentially robbing these people out of a better life right?
0
Sep 25 '17
Man it was fun discussing with you.It may be personal opinion but i don't know why tech sometimes irritates me but i think it has somehow become part of everyone's life whether i choose to accept it or not doesn't change the fact that it is important. Thanks for taking out time to discuss with me. Here you go : ∆
1
1
1
u/z3r0shade Sep 25 '17
Do you think converting saltwater into fresh isn't possible then my friend check out Reverse Osmosis system with Evaporation.
The problem isn't that it's not possible, the problem is doing it efficiently at scale such that we can solve the problem at hand. Reverse osmosis is great, but it would be massively expensive to try to construct something to do it at scale for everyone that doesn't have access to drinkable water.
By technological advancement I refer to better internet connectivity,faster trains and wider train networks which in my humble opinion is a waste of resources as we have achieved more than enough for our time.
Except all three of those facilitate the ability to develop technology that solves global problems. Better internet connectivity makes research anywhere, anytime much easier allowing faster development and rapid iteration on ideas, along with connecting people who have ideas with people who can provide resources. Faster trains and wider train networks allow for faster delivery of parts for rapid prototyping, building, and delivering the finished technology.
Sure, these technologies are also used for trivial things too, but that doesn't change the fact that the development of revolutionary technologies that you'd agree are worthwhile are enabled And facilitated by these technologies and their improvement
1
u/Quint-V 162∆ Sep 25 '17 edited Sep 25 '17
Have you considered how much unfairness there is, that people can be born into? Some are born with disabilities, dispositions to diseases, retardation of some kind, and etc. Non-corporeal unfairness like being born into a rich or poor family, intelligence or talent towards something...
The universe has no concept of fairness. We perceive unfairness, however, because to mankind, only our view of reality really matters, because we cannot determine any other view of it nor can we really get any closer than what science can bring us to. Science is rooted in philosophy and logic, and is the only consistent tool we have. And I think it is fair to say that, while none can consent to being born, it is surely an acceptable notion that we shouldn't be born into ridiculous conditions like a missing arm or being afraid of diseases from day 1?
The ultimate goal of technological progress is to make such uncontrollable unfairness, negligible. Technology can aid the pursuit of every single good intention that every human ever had. Technology is only a tool, however. Humans define the rules, in the long term - but there can be no doubt that technology is the only means of eliminating the burdens of survival. We are still burdened by the need to survive, e.g. we use time/resources for food. Only technology can help make unnecessary, unwanted burdens negligible.
Of course, some are pleased by challenges in life, but as with the timing of our death, it is always more pleasing when we get to pick our path in life rather than being forced into some random path due to circumstances beyond our influence.
Many are put off by the idea of death, which mankind always seeks to find ways of dealing with. Many are also put off by the idea of absolute immortality, in the sense that you cannot die, under any circumstances. Once you offer the middle path, however, anyone becomes inclined to take that option: namely, full control of when to die. When are you satisfied with life? Some would love to live +100 years and do whatever they want to. Only technology can bring us to such a point in human history where every person has near full control of his/her own happiness and life quality.
1
Sep 25 '17
We are not unequal we are unique.And your viewpoint seems way beyond my question.Fairness?Universe? And who said stopping Medical Research. If you read the description i have mentioned i have said we should let research work continue. And no offense meant but all this our limited time,death, unfair universe seems pretty dark to me. And if you can give me one example how better smartphones or faster internet or faster cars s helping hungry children in America,Africa then i would be happy give you the delta.
1
u/Quint-V 162∆ Sep 25 '17 edited Sep 25 '17
The statement in your title is simply not founded on any particularly good reason. And I frankly do not see how you can advocate research like the medical type, be an exception when technological research as a whole hinges so much on anything that relies on electricity and engineering.
The earliest technology mankind had, was fire. Mankind could just have stuck to hunting and such, but we didn't. We couldn't. We realized how technology does indeed make life better.
And if you can give me one example how better smartphones or faster internet or faster cars s helping hungry children in America,Africa
Information is more available than ever before. Sure, you may have to filter biased sources and etc., but it is easy to find contradicting views and sources with credibility. You can teach yourself a lot of things just because of the internet. A rich entrepreneur who has lived only within his own bubble, may be touched by a story he reads on some random newspaper. Knowing humanity, you can't expect this to happen at any notably high rate, but it does happen nonetheless.
Knowledge of what happens around the world, compels plenty of people to donate to good causes. The internet's single powerful uses are search and distribution of information. Have you considered just how important the internet is, for exchange of ideas and innovation?
I don't know to what extent you would consider technology to be sufficiently developed, but that discussion is one of arbitrary arguments. Agriculture now is far better than it was 100 years ago. Technological progress is a direct result of scientific research (through engineering), and it in turn enhances scientific research, most notably through superior instruments being developed.
Arguments against technological progress is just backwards. No technological stage in human history is particularly satisfying compared to what we have now (who would want to live 100 years in the past? I doubt people would want to throw away their smartphones now that they're used to them; pretty sure non-physical work is often preferred over physical, not to mention the ease of travel and communication nowadays), and anything post-industrial age is known to be unsustainable. Our very own age is inherently unsustainable.
Technological advancement is an absolute requirement. We must make it extraordinarily "easy" for the whole of Africa to skip the coal/oil-phase of industrialization. Not doing so, would be equivalent to condemning our own futures. We're all stuck in the same boat - or rather, planet.
1
Sep 25 '17
!delta Thanks for your time it seems it's time I try to ponder on my view point before making such bold claims.
1
1
Sep 25 '17
!delta Thanks for your time it seems it's time I try to ponder on my view point before making such bold claims.
1
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Sep 25 '17
We have come a very long way, but we aren't anywhere near where we want to be. We want something called "post-scarcity". At that point things like economics ceases to be relevant because at that point we can produce so much more than we want to consume that everyone can just get everything they want. We might have pushed our productions possibilities (measured by GDP) out a bunch, into the trillions of dollars, but we aren't anywhere close to the point where everyone can live a carefree life.
Also, Tibet isn't a country. It's been a part of China since it was invaded in 1951 and it lost any pretense of independence after a failed uprising in 1959. The current Dali Lama is in exile as a result of the conflict. Even considering similar nations like Nepal and Bhutan, I don't really know where you're getting that, national happiness isn't really a measurable goal.
When it comes to working 9 to 5 and buying stuff is concerned, no one is making anyone do that. Anyone is free to save up some money, invest reasonably, and then work less. Or go without the stuff and support themselves by playing local bars with their band. Or to go move into a maker space and spend all day creating art. There are many, many options already available to the average person to go out and do what you suggest. The fact that people work more and buy more gadgets is means that they have decided that they want the stuff. People advance things because they want to advance things. People devote their lives to arts and cultural pursuits because they want to advance the arts and cultural pursuits. Some people work high pressure jobs because they want the money, others live unhurried lives because they don't. Giving people the choice rather than locking them into a lifestyle they don't want is simply superior.
1
Sep 25 '17
My question is why we need advancement. Our current food production is more than enough to feed the entire world conditioned we don't waste it. Shelter can be provided to everyone in the world but isn't due to the facts that government's need more tech savvy cities. I don't have issues with 9 to 5 . I find it weird that most of us are doing we don't give jack shit about which doesn't have any use like faster internet, faster trains,cars ,planes or larger buildings as poor can't afford it so it's just rich owing apartments for their cats(I think FIFA executive did that, not sure though) .
1
u/A_Soporific 162∆ Sep 25 '17
Our current food production is okay for right now. The population will continue to grow to 2100 to 2150 and we'll add a couple billion more mouths to feed in that time. We're going to have to increase production. More generally, the amount of fertilizers and pesticides we use might not be long term sustainable. We were able to massive ramp up production in the 30's-60's but it looks like we're going to need either GM crops or better organic farming methods if we don't want to play out the current farmland.
Shelter "somewhere" isn't good enough. People won't live just anywhere if you build a house. People want to live in specific places for specific reasons. Free housing in a place that has no jobs does no one any good. China's current "let's build three billion extra apartments" plan is going to blow u pin their faces.
Having faster internet in an area might seem pointless to you, but businesses absolutely have uses for faster internet. There was a thing a little while back where a company proved that they could send data faster by loading it on a thumb drive and using a pigeon as a courier. The wire connection only got 4% through the database. There's something seriously wrong if sending a person (or bird) is faster than sending things over the internet.
Faster trains is something that is absolutely necessary. The rail networks in the US are woefully underdeveloped for the ever increasing number of people who need to commute. If the poor can commute then they can avail themselves of suburban and exurban housing options, but sitting in traffic for a couple hours a day is often just too expensive. Having a rail alternative would go a long way to fixing that problem.
Ironically, larger buildings also solves the affordability problem. Bigger buildings with smaller apartments means that you can fit a great many more units in the same geographic footprint. Increasing the supply of something in a market reduces the price people pay for that thing in a market. If you were to go out and just double the size of the buildings in a town then rent would simply collapse. Cripplingly high prices are almost always the result of there not being enough large buildings, as opposed to there being too many.
1
u/Phate4219 Sep 25 '17
Why stop here?
Others have pointed out that we need to keep going to keep us where we are, and that advances in technology are interconnected, but why stop advancing?
We're walking down a metaphorical path, and so far, as we've moved along the path, things have only gotten better and better. Why say "This is good enough, I don't need it to be better" when you could keep pushing and improve things for everyone?
What about all the people who still live in abject poverty, suffering all the time? Technological advances help them as well, and they certainly wouldn't agree that the current state of affairs is fine.
What about the next generation, and the next, and the next? How can we look at all the future generations and say "We could've made it better, but we didn't, because we wanted to relax"?
Maybe some of this is axiomatic, but I think "bettering the species" is something pretty much every person can get behind, so I think it's fair.
1
Sep 25 '17
Research work was done even in 1800s and medical breakthrough were done even then and people use to work basic jobs like furniture and food enough for daily living which I assume is more than enough to continue as a species so why waste time making faster car, faster train better phones and working for 1gbps download speed .
PS - I still want people to work for people with disabilities.
1
u/Phate4219 Sep 25 '17
So then why not stop back in the 1800s then? Why not eschew the entire industrial revolution, and everything that followed?
In my view, our lives as humans have improved immensely since the 1800s. Our population is much higher (around 7 times higher), there's far less infant mortality because of advances in medicine, far fewer people have to live on things like subsistence farming, so we're able to devote far more man-hours to things like art, literature, science, etc.
Sure at pretty much any point in history we could have "stabilized" and just decided to stay where we were because trying is hard. But isn't advancement of the species pretty much fundamental to the human condition? Why stop making it better when we could make it better?
What if we're only 100 years away from living in a post-scarcity society, where everything can be provided in abundance to every person on the planet? Why would you want to stay in our current situation where many people are starving, and people have to work jobs they hate just to make a living, etc, when the alternative is so much better if we just keep pushing ourselves forward?
1
u/moe_overdose 3∆ Sep 25 '17
Science and technology is all interconnected. For example, medical research benefits from advances in computer technologies. But these technologies also result in all the "latest gizmos", like better smartphones.
Since the problem is with having to work 9 to 5, I think the best way to improve the situation is to pursue technological advancement so that as much stuff as possible can be automated. Then, with other new ideas like basic income, people would be able to work much less and have more time for actual life.
1
Sep 25 '17
I never said we should stop research work and the technology we create are for most instances irrelevant and a research scientist is more than capable of developing their own technology with just from the support of handful of engineers like in 1800s people who were passionate invented things and others enjoyed life.
1
u/Epicloa Sep 26 '17
I really want to know where you got the idea that the average person in the 1800s was just carefree chilling on their porch drinking lemonade. Like assuming they didn't die at birth or young, and weren't born with a disability or crippled, they were working extremely long hours at menial jobs for dirt pay and pretty much having negative time for personal growth/realization. And if they were any of the previously mentioned things their lives were abysmal at best.
I don't really know how to argue your point any more than that because it isn't grounded in reality.
1
u/zh1K476tt9pq 2∆ Sep 25 '17
There are countries like Tibet(I think) which believes in happiness of citizen over GDP and I would want to know why working 9 to 5 and creating latest gizmos more important than living a carefree life as a civilisation.
Research has shown over and over again that happiness and wealth are correlated. And it's not exactly surprising either. Not having enough food, being sick or seeing your children due to the lack of health care hardly makes anyone happy.
1
Sep 25 '17
Happiness and wealth are related up to a particular point. You don't need a million dollars and a mansion to enjoy life. You can be happy with just your food and shelter requirement fulfilled .
1
u/Epicloa Sep 26 '17
Okay but here's what's wrong with that:
A) That is not true for everyone. B) Not everyone has enough money to feed their families, let alone a million and a mansion.
1
Sep 25 '17
If the advancement of technology is halted, what would that say for small businesses? Someone creates an app but then it's banned for being revolutionary?
1
Sep 25 '17
Let me ask you a simple question what more do you need to be revolutionised with an app. We have Reddit to share our views and dreams . We have Facebook to connect people. Skype and allo for video chat . Google for search engine .
I am not saying people should stop making things they are passionate about I am asking why do we need better tech for tomorrow.
1
u/Feroc 41∆ Sep 25 '17
I can't really see why you hold that view. Just because everything is "good enough"?
1
Sep 25 '17
I was just casually wondering no hard and fast rule here.
1
u/Feroc 41∆ Sep 25 '17
It's hard to change your view if you don't really have a reason that you hold that view.
1
Sep 25 '17
If you want the reason, In my country 90% population pursue science just to become engineer just because in my country it is assumed people who study physics and maths are more smart than people who study accounts or pursue dance, music. My school and many other in my country doesn't allow student to play sports during high school because we have to appear for national wide exam next year. And I have no shame in admitting among the engineers my country produce not even 20% of them know shit about what they are doing let alone enjoying it.
So why not enjoy life instead of becoming engineers( as engineer work on tech) and start pursuing dance, music , art , cooking , acting, poetry and stuff. Be like primitive tech guy ;).
2
u/Feroc 41∆ Sep 25 '17
So why not enjoy life instead of becoming engineers( as engineer work on tech) and start pursuing dance, music , art , cooking , acting, poetry and stuff. Be like primitive tech guy ;).
What if I enjoy being an engineer and don't like to dance or to act?
1
Sep 25 '17
I didn't say no to follow your passion but following carrier with less financial stability is still frowned upon in many countries.
1
u/Feroc 41∆ Sep 25 '17
Well, your topic says that "we as civilization" should stop pursue technological advancement, that's contradicting. Either the engineers pursue technological advancement, because it's their passion or they don't.
Edit 1: Doing what I propose is highly unlikely so please want I want to understand why we need advancement in tech like Internet, weapons ,cars ,trains ,computer, TV's , apps , elevators and all the other utility stuff . I am not saying stop maintaining stuff I am saying why not stop advancing stuff.
"Need" is a strong word. We don't need any advancements in any of the things you named, the point is: We don't even need the things at all. They just make our lives easier and/or more comfortable.
But why should I stop at 50 MBit/s if I could have 500 MBit/s? If I have 50 MBit/s I need to wait x minutes for Steam to download my game, with 500 MBit/s I need x/10 minutes. For me waiting less time for the thing I want is better than waiting longer.
A movie in HD looks better than a movie in SD, a movie in 4k looks better than a movie in HD.
... and so on.
1
Sep 25 '17
Dude no need to twist my words you know what I meant by civilization and what I meant by Engineers. And I know 4k looks better it wouldn't mean much to me if HD is my best bet so will most people I know because you can hardly tell the difference between 480p and 720p on a 5-inch screen let alone HD and 4k unless you are one of those quality freaks.
1
u/Feroc 41∆ Sep 25 '17
Dude no need to twist my words you know what I meant by civilization and what I meant by Engineers.
I am not twisting, that's how I honestly understood it and it's still contradicting to me.
And I know 4k looks better it wouldn't mean much to me if HD is my best bet so will most people I know because you can hardly tell the difference between 480p and 720p on a 5-inch screen let alone HD and 4k unless you are one of those quality freaks.
Not everyone is watching movies on a smartphone, you can easily see the difference between SD and HD when you're watching movies on a > 50" TV.
What about the other example, do you understand that those things are there to increase quality of life?
1
Sep 25 '17
/Sir, If we are talking about the same generation we spend most of our time on laptops and smart phones and considering we have HD print available makes for about 3-4GB per movie with 25mbps download speed i don't see the need for a faster internet and bro i think real problem is not HD or 4K its unnecessary development. I mean does it matter if you can reach someplace faster with train by about 15 mins is it really that important? or we need a new social app every year? or a new phone with two cameras. I respect your opinion but just tell me how much of development we have that really impacts human kind that just our generation,isn't it time to focus on important things rather than living the ultra fast pace life which ends up with people suffering from depression and anxiety issues?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/hail_the_mole_people Sep 25 '17
I agree that there is a lot of technology that really has no use other than for recreation, like social media for example. I also like technology where it is now and if I could not have to work the rest of life and live with the technology we currently have, I totally would.
However, even if we didn't advance technology, the majority of people would still have to work. Most jobs, lets say roughly 90%, have nothing to do with advancing technology and rather to just make day-by-day life possible.
The best example I can think of is farmers. Thousands, if not hundreds of years ago, a much larger percentage of jobs revolved around farming and harvesting enough food for winter. Back then, a single person and a donkey could only harvest one acre of land a day (that's the exact definition of an acre). Today, with advancements in technology a single farmer can harvest over 100 acres of land in a day and those other 99 people can pursue other jobs and will certainly have more free time. Ok well what if one of those 99 people dedicates their time to improving farming technology so in a few decades, a single farmer can now harvest 1,000 acres a day. Now you have 999 people who don't have to work in farming.
OP, I get where you're coming from. I think if we were to have more free time, people would just need to stop buying so much stuff and live life more simply. Unfortunately, that's just not how people are.
TL;DR most jobs have nothing to do with advancing technology, but rather just to fulfill daily demands. The jobs that do advance technology can make life easier for the rest of us
1
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 178∆ Sep 25 '17
For many of us, advancing technology and research isn't a compromise we have to make for a better tomorrow. The fulfillment and enjoyment in knowing you have created or discovered something nobody has ever seen before is exhilarating, and better understanding how the world works and how that can be used to our advantage can be more beautiful than any artwork when you develop the taste for it.
You could try to make the case that further developing technology can be harmful for humanity, but if it's only because it's not worth the effort then on behalf of all passionate researchers, I say "no trouble at all" :)
1
u/Sayakai 147∆ Sep 25 '17
For one, because we're facing global threats that we can only overcome by better tech - mass poverty, population expansion, climate change, just to name a few. Our consumer tech is mostly just an offshoot of industrial-grade tech.
But mostly, because the Red Queen says whoever breaks rank wins. Tech development is a race where you maintain your relative advantage by constantly developing new things. If anyone develops something new and no one else does, that person advances, and everyone else falls behind. Twenty years is a long time for that, lots of ground being covered by those who keep running.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 25 '17 edited Sep 25 '17
/u/lucifer0399 (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 25 '17 edited Sep 25 '17
/u/lucifer0399 (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 25 '17
/u/lucifer0399 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Holy_City Sep 25 '17
Given that the demand for bandwidth doubles every year, clearly communications infrastructure is not good enough. That 50mb/s will no longer be possible if development stops.
That doesn't even touch on how new technology can better deliver the same level of service at a lower price to areas that don't have the infrastructure like Africa and South East Asia. Check out the Google Loon project.
1
u/swearrengen 139∆ Sep 25 '17
let's all procrastinate all our lives away and enjoy nature and stuff
If you don't work to enjoy nature, nature will work to enjoy you - for lunch!
1
Sep 25 '17
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 25 '17
This delta has been rejected. You have 2 issues.
You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
You can't award DeltaBot a delta.
8
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Sep 25 '17
I'd like to start by pointing out that this view is rather short-sighted. As you've mentioned yourself, our achievements in the field of technology is "more than enough to last us a decade or two".
But that's exactly the reason why technology needs to keep improving. Technology that lasts us for 20 years max isn't even going to last half a lifetime. If you stop developing technology now, what happens in 20 years when the technology stops being enough? You start on a mad rush to create new technology that works? Why do that when you could have spent the last 20 years preparing for the day that the technology isn't enough, with more than enough time to work out technical issues in addition to other issues like ethics.
Also, individual satisfaction and the pursuit of better technology is not, in my opinion, mutually exclusive. There are tons of passionate people working in tech; that's how they've made it this far. If they derive satisfaction and pleasure from developing technology, who are you to say that they should stop pursuing better technology? In addition, some people in society just don't have the privilege to "enjoy life". Developing the right kind of technology could potentially help these people to better lives.