I agree about the useless crap being produced.

As for evolution and technology, they aren't the same thing, at least for the moment. Technology will have an impact on our own evolution. But the evolution of technology bears a striking resemblance to the evolution of life. I do believe that ultimately, it will be done in a way that not only does not degrade the environment, but allows it to thrive while allowing us to pursue what end we make for ourselves. It's really the only choice there is, beyond no technology at all, which of course is possible.

just went on youtube and this was on my front page or whatever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heoHnqsXhSU

Imo, this is a pretty bad definition and presents an anthropocentric viewpoint...where somehow humans have the ability to make things that are "not natural". However, if we are natural beings, surrounded by natural objects...by what sorcery do we make things that are unnatural? Why is an apartment building different than a wasp's nest? Why is a log cabin different than a beaver dam? Natural/unnatural, is (imo) a non-existent and useless distinction. Man-made has value, because it speaks to the creations of human beings without implying that humans are separate from nature.

Also, I would posit that the wide-ranging condemnation of technology is rather off. Have humans ever existed without technology? A stick, when picked up and put to use becomes technology...an animal hide becomes technology the moment it's plucked off of a carcass and worn...a gourd becomes technology the moment it is filled with water to drink. And technically, I would posit, all of these and much more could be said to be technology the moment someone thought about putting them to these uses. Technology is not evil, but industrial technologies and the societies around them are killing the planet. Technology is not unsustainable, but industrial technology is. This is an important distinction, imo.

Finally, devolution is probably not the best term...as it implies a directionality to evolution that is not valid.

^^^^ Yes Snozz...well put.

Tech is almost a fundamental necessity in whatever form. I would feel very out of place in the world without it...(and also pretty bored)

If all the lights went out and power was was shut off...how many billions would eventually starve or die of exposure? That's if the ensuing riots and chaos didn't get them first.

Need to read up on wilderness survival...or make a windmill..

Yep I watched them all..well those that are on UKTV and Discovery... definitely useful (although Bear got a lot of flak for wimping out and going back to his cozy hotel after the cams stopped rolling...He's a devout Christian if I remember right..but he knows his stuff. Stroud is inspiring)



but not if you had you're iphone/gps/Starbucks map...tech certainly helps..

Great thread...Start with Trolls...end up with Bears...Troll Grylls !

Bear is a funny guy and his programme is great, but listening to him will get you real dead, real fast.

Snozz I agree that is a pretty weird definition, but I can perfectly see why it exists since so many people associate the word "nature" with just trees and plants and stuff..

And jamie, that's actually a good point, and another case of definition. One of the definitions for evolution is: "the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms, especially by natural selection" So by that definition technology is certainly not a part of evolution since it's not a living organism. But when I say that technology is a part of evolution, I mean that in the sense that on a earth-like planet, it will always have to arise when a certain level of intelligence or "external tool use" is reached in an organism. But obviously that's just my personal opinion on it, and I accept the possibility that on another earth-like planet out there, they might somehow just skip the technology part, by ascending into a higher dimension earlier or something, who knows! I certainly don't, I just speculate based on all the knowledge and observations I've gathered during my short life. But to me, the probability that technology is an inevitable stage on earth is just too high to dismiss. The question is not "Should we have technology?" the question is "What should we do with technology?"

I think this is going too far into some kind of semantic nonsense really. We all understand the idea that what humans make is could be seen as "natural"..but how natural is an atom bomb? If something is not congruent with nature(probly half our tech) than how is it really "natural" in that context? You can claim that within the larger universe everything is natural, but that does not mean it is not incongreunt.

Many of our cultural practices are completely incongruent with the rest of the system we have arisen and flourished within.

I am not into this whole transhuman, super techno VR future idea..I find it discusting concidering where we seem to be headed right now. Personally I just think people are so jaded that they want to make claims about how we are stuck with technology etc..which is like saying nothing really. We also seem to be stuck with bunk party politics and oil wars and nuclear meltdowns..but we should not be so jaded to assume that these things are doing us any good.

I guess I dont buy into this whole new age idea of being some kind of absolute positivist. I find that a defeatest attitude. I think when something looks like shit you should call it what it is. If you saw a hurricane comming would you not tell everyone else so they can react? What I see is a sort of lackidazical almost approach to our situation with baked hippies claiming "it's all good" or some equally useless crap statements.

The thing is..it probly is all good..but that is only because people WILL focus in on the negative and what needs to be done and do it. People should not just accept anything just because it seems prevalent at this time, technology included. For humans to abandon all tech would be pointless, but to not seriously stand back and critique it is the stupidest act of all. We have nuclear rain all the time where I am now..the gulf spill fucked up the whole east coast..the amazon is dissapearing..giant rivers unsafe to drink from..GMO crops destroying the genetic integrity of entire plant species..I dont call that congruent with nature. I dont call it natural..not in the scope of what we are talking about here.

What I am NOT saying here is that the stage we are going through is unnatural. I think the stage we are goign through is possibly just an essential process in learning..whatever it is we are learning. I dont believe in "mistakes" really..so it is hard for me to claim that we are not where we are sopposed to be..but I do think we are in a place where we are seeing bluntly what does not work for us, and what does not work for this planet and I hope humans are smart enough to see that very clearly.

"Finally, devolution is probably not the best term...as it implies a directionality to evolution that is not valid."

On an epigenetic level it's the perfect term. Study the work of Weston Price..devolution is the best term I can think of. Our agricultural techniques have failed us. Humans need to rethink their position here.

jamie...all I was saying is that even so-called "devolution" is evolution.

Evolution does not imply progress towards greater complexity...merely adaptation to fit ecological/environmental niches.

When an evolutionary adaptation fails, more evolution occurs, not devolution.

Edit: Also natural does not imply congruency (the cancer cell example someone made earlier springs to mind)...if people want to talk about technologies that destroy or are incongruent with nature, they should state that, rather than label them unnatural.

Industrial society should be done away with, imo, precisely because of its incongruencies with nature in the broader sense, but that is a fundamentally different assertion than "technology is unnatural."

well yeah i agree thats one way to look at it. Many though use evolution as a term to denote progress or developing in a useful direction, perhaps towards greater complexity like you said..so its understandable that devolution would be an apt term for when things go the other direction. imo this is is all just argueing over words/definitions though and is sort of missing the point perhaps

of course everything is evolution..but the direction we have evolved seems to have been into a state of degredation. There is tons of evidence to support this..it should also be able to be reversed on an epigenetic level in just a few generations if the theories are correct..assuming we acknowledge the situation and act accordingly.

Devolution inplies that there is a purpose to evolution, which I am not claiming so it is likely the wrong term to use. A state of epigenetic degredation sounds better.

Very good points jamie. I think I agree with your stance in almost all counts.

And Snozz,
the way I see it, you are right, this is an argument over definitions and words. But that doesn't mean it isn't important. The words are all we have with which to communicate with each other (probably), so it is important we a at least agree upon the base of knowledge that is the words. Then we can move on from there.

It is interesting how much has changed from the OP, and just how alluring this evolution of discussion has been.

See what I did there?

Edit:
I also wanted to say, this is my first time debating this topic in general. It seems some folks have gone through this once or twice or fifty times before, so sorry if it's old. I really feel like I've gotten a lot out of it, though. So, thanks!

Never said that...don't disagree. My assertions focused entirely on precision in terminology.

Perhaps you meant universecannon?

^^^ You're right, sorry!

I liked the convergence of Snozz's and Jamie's points. It reads like a good synthesis.

Just a few thoughts about this:



I think the choice of the word "failed" is a key note in the whole subject. Most of us will completely agree with this. The classical concepts of evolution seem to stress evolutionary success not qualitatively, but quantitatively.

According to that perspective, success comes with big numbers. In that sense, agricultural techniques based in mass production, particularly of refined cereals, actually were successful - in boosting population numbers for societies that relied in expansion and domination through numerical superiority. Once that lit the fuse of the overpopulation bomb, fueled by technology AND a concept of progress also serving the big numbers, humanity was bound to reach the current situation. The drama of overpopulation and the non-sustainability of that concept of progress is dawning on our generation, perhaps more clearly than ever before.

So we are to redefine success... both our concepts of progress, our views on technology and our evaluation of evolution/devolution are shifting towards the qualitative. If it's not too late, that might change the game for good.

No worries

I know this has been said before, but I just wanted to share my perspective on things.

An absolute viewpoint on whether technology has a "negative" or "positive" impact on us in terms of a singular perspective is always going to be false. Technology can be both beneficial and detrimental. It's an impartial variable, it's the application of technology that shades which way it leans. Luddites who feel that technology is bad should stand on their laurels, smash their computers, strip their clothes and start foraging. But I take it they won't do that, because intuitively they understand the benefits of technology. If you want to talk about the evolution of the human species by stating that cavemen were stronger than modern man, is missing the point of our evolution. We've evolved to point were "brute" strength is not as useful to our intellect. Though people argue that our technology dumbs us down, such as losing math skills by using a calculator, a commonly cited example. But while true, that misses the point. Being able to use calculators has allowed us to make computations that are impossible for the human mind to do and thus allow for us more efficient progress. Technology is a bane and a boon. It's all a matter of how it's wielded. When it comes to how food is produced I will agree that the monoculture of many crops is unsustainable (well unless we evolve into a species that survives on a high fructose carb loaded diet, which if we keep up this path is bound to happen). Obviously I can't list the myriad examples of the impact of all different types of technologies the subject is too vast and too complicated when speaking in broad terms.

The gist if you want to look at evolution from a solely genetic perspective, as is done in biology then you can talk about the newer human evolutions, such as HIV infected prostitutes in Africa having been infected for 20 plus years never developing AIDs based on their particular genetic makeup, or people in the US developing a gene that is responsible for vasculature responding and healing more rapidly in people with very poor diets. Remember evolution is a slow process.

On a macro scale technology and humanity are intertwined. And both coevolve in a strangwme symbiosis between the organic (humans), and inorganic. It's human nature to develop technology, that much should be obvious. What people really are afraid of is losing their humanity. But why? If evolution is to be believed, and scientific reasoning seems to think that it's the truth given what we know about biology, then we should not fear losing our humanity. As long as we are still humans we will always have human nature. We lost our bacteria nature, our fish, amphibian, lizard and primate nature (okay so "lose" is a strong word, we evolved past it, such as how you can see the evolution of our brains like a totem pole back to our earlier forms). We will evolve past our human nature too. This form is only transient, and who wants to be a dumb ape man forever anyway. The theory is that we will integrate with technology in a technological singularity (if we don't kill ourselves before we get there). Though even if we kill ourselves some extremeophile will continue to evolve and rise from the ashes. If we don't get off this planet and figure out a way to survive in space we go extinct when the sun dies. To go the ativistuc route back to a more "primitive" form of man will lose this ultimate goal. Sure technology makes us physically weaker. Ever since we developed glasses we allowed people with poor vision to survive, and spread the genes for poor vision. Same is true for asthmatics and other types of conditions, but so what. What's the solution? Eugenics? Population control? I think not, let nature weed us out, while we just continue to hammer on with the goal of expanding what we know of the universe and try to survive and hopefully in the future iur invalid genetically altered android offspring will spread across the cosmos, or well reach enlightenment or whatever.

Of course Maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe evolution is wrong. It all could be. Because the human mind can only grasp so much. When we evolve toca point where we can understand everything then we will be enlightened. Until then Inthink we should work on making the world a safer happier loving place, because in the end were still all going to die. And you know what, I'm cool with that.

Peace.

That was an amazing post Psychelectric, very well said.

The evolution of this thread has been quite fascinating to witness. Nexians never disappoint!