DISCUSSIONS on the TECHNOLOGICAL DIMENSION
The Culture-Nature Interface
moderated by Phil Bartle, PhD
Contributions will be added to the top of this collection as I receive them
From Phil Bartle
Date: Sun, 16 Jan
Ironically, one species that does not have any mechanism to stop an individual of the same species from fighting, it is the dove, our symbol of peace. If two doves start fighting, and one weakens, it does not have a way (like a wolf or dog showing submission by presenting its neck) of calling off the enemy, calling "uncle." The winning dove will continue pecking the loser long after it is dead.
Date: Sun, 16 Jan
From: allison m
I wish I could remember the name of the Behavioral Biologist that I recently read a book by, but I cannot and don't have the book in front of meb The book was entitled "On Agression", and I'd advise anyone thinking about the "nuke" problem to read it. The main point that is salient here is that we are not carnivors with built in instincts to prevent us from killing each other. In a natural setting one chimp cannot really kill another chimp, before that one can get away or apease its attacker. However, put a tool (like a rock) into the hand of the chimp and suddenly it can. The first human that killed his/her friend with the rock that s/he'd been breaking open bones with was probably startled. "That wasn't supposed to happen." Our neat thing called technology lets us bypass a lot of limitation that are placed on us by nature, but some of them maybe shouldn't be bypassed. All creatures that have to be agressive have ways to prevent them being agressive towards members of their own species, most of these have to do with being close to the other member so you can "recognize" that it's another chimp. Take the rock away, give the chimp a gun; now it doesn't even get the "don't kill" smell from the other chimp. Now, a sniper rifle - more space - less anti-kill instinct. Now, give a pilot a button to push. Suddenly we have the answer to why a perfectly normal person could press a button and unleash death upon a whole people and then go home and cuddle with his/her child - total and compleat disconnect. And our 'training facilities' help with this disconnect. The recent massy lecturer said that "we are working with 21st century software on pre-history hardware." I'd say it's time for an upgrade before we destroy our whole race and our whole planet.
TX. For reading,
Date: Thu, 13 Jan
From: "Jamie G"
The issue you raise brings a very important question to hand. When does technology become a counter productive step in our (human beings) evolution?
The "further technologically advanced" we as a civilization become, the higher the consequences we face become as well. What we know from studying past species that have inhabited this earth, is that adaptation is the key to survival. Albert Einstein cracked the secret of the Atom for advancement of the technological field to benefit Human existence. That technology was used to create nuclear weapons for protection of our species. It is that exact same technology that is now looming over the world with the threat of nuclear war that has the capability to destroy everything as we know it.
Date: January 13
From: Daniel W
as human beings, we have significantly advanced in technology over the last hundred years. it could be argued that it is our increase in pollution and damage to the environment, that will inevitably destroy us or that we could avoid further destruction to the ecosystem by using our advanced technology. we already see this trend being implemented with the use of electric cars and recycling. on the other hand the world is running out of room to dispose of toxic waste which we currently still need to somehow get rid of because it is produced as a result of everyday necessities, which we use on a routine basis. the laws that are put in place by authorities, for companies to follow to get rid of waste often times are not. it is less expensive for companies to dump toxic chemicals in the ocean, than it is to legally deal with their problem. companies sometimes take this risk because they are in it for the profit, and there is usually no serious form of retribution to the company. the public has no clemency for the company if they find out what the company has done, but that usually never happens. we are very technologically advanced compared to one hundred years ago, but it is this technology that will ultimately destroy us.
If you copy text from this site, please acknowledge the author(s)