Technology makes things more organized? Lower entropy? Are we talking in theory, or in practice here?

Oceans are filled with plastic. Disorganization, right there. We deficate into toilets and take that organic matter, that nutrient, out of the life cycle, rather than putting it back into the soil where it belongs. Organization you say? Less entropy?

Transhumanism is a good thing? So....monsanto should just keep doing what they are doing, harvard is working on robotic bees to replace the real bees. Technology will fix the problems that technology causes. That last sentence defies logic...should we take it on faith then? Albert Einstein said something about the impossibility of solving problem with the same consciousness that caused the problem. He must have lacked faith.

Sure, technology is natural--everything is natural. Not all natural things are good. Technology is a part of the human mind that is going all haywire and bugging out, deleriously, absurdly, destructively. It could be used wisely--in theory at least.

I could have made this post a lot shorter and merely said this: you two hold some assumptions that seem mighty strange to me and I suspect your logic circuits are all out of whack.

Consider that you've merely provided one side of the argument. It doesn't really mean that because you have low entropy there that you easily don't have higher entropy in other applications of technology (technology being the vaguest of terms anyway). I could give a bunch of positive examples, but it doesn't make the positive side of the argument right either. Lots of these questions to which people are seeking the answers tend not to be able to be simplistically answered as yes/no; this way/that way, etc...

Of course technology brings lower entropy - to the system in question. Is a bird's nest more organized than a scattered bunch of twigs? Of course. Is a beaver dam a deliberately organized system of wood? of course. But trees are felled and killed to make it, it dams up the flow of a river or lake drowning more trees and creating stagnant water that kills many organisms and changes the ecosystem of the lake. This does not change the fact that a beaver dam is an organized system of lower entropy than scattered logs and trees. And it is, by definition, a technology.

Would you mind identifying the assumptions that seem strange to you? I admit I am baffled at your logic, and would like to understand how you think my "logic circuits are all out of whack".

For the record, I did not say technology is "good" or "bad", just that it was natural. Viruses are natural, and they destroy more than they create. So hate viruses, hate people, hate technology if you will - just don't stand under the false assumption that we are somehow "different", and not part of the equation. If you do, you help foster and "us and them" attitude toward nature, and you have far more in common with the brass at Monsanto than you believe.

JBArk

I have to say I dont necessarily agree that technology is making things more organized, neither do I agree that a birds nest is the same thing are our current technology. This is why the term "natural" has someone lost it's meaning in discussions like this IMO. If you want to call both of them natural than that is fine, I am fine with that..but in terms of coherance with the preexisting planetary system that has been here for far longer than humans have, I can say with absolute confidence that a birds nest seems far more coherant within that system than an automobile or laptop does. This is just the reality of it. Birdsnests are not burning fossil fuels or wastefuly made of plastic and other toxic matierals etc. A birds nest is just made of dead sticks.

To compare the two is a way that makes them the same thing is kind of rediculous in my view. A birdsnest and a stick hut in the jungle are more like the same things for me..a birdsnest and a bow and arrow or hunting spear are more similar..the relation to and consequence within the larger system of a cell phone and a beaver dam are just not the same at this current time. The catch is that without going through the phase we are in now we might not be able to reach that level. Tech is not "bad" but it def has the ability to be completely incoherant within the greater system.

Hopefully at some point we will move into a global technological culture that is based on biosustainable tech that is truely coherant within the global gaiasphere..but at this point we are not at that level.

Our tech is largely not ecologically coherant as it is applied in the mainstream. A birdsnest is. My proof for this is that we dont see mass deforestation or toxification of the ecosystem due to bird technologies like birdsnests.

I wish people would just stop saying eveyrthing is natural, and using that as their arguement. Hilter was natural too. Doesnt mean his actions were coherant within the larger scope of humanity.

Another way to say this more bluntly is this..birds exist in symbiosis within the planetary ecosystem, and western civilization(mostly due to our tech) exists as a parasite. Nature is abound with parasites..but not to the degree that they threaten the integrity of the entire system the way humans have been doing.

I am definatly not anti technology..I am just critical of the way technology is currently use and I think that criticism is entirley justified. We are not on the most sustainable system we could be on only due to political reasons..and that is not really acceptable for me.

We are actually more in agreement than you seem to think. I just believe that harping on the idea that we are not separate from the natural world is very important, to the point that I think many of the pitfalls we seem to have indulged in stem from a belief that we are somehow different, and "other", allowing us the philosophical and ethical freedom to create technologies AT ANY COST, as a sort of warped sense of entitlement. If a shift were made in this paradigm, one that I believe most here would get behind, we could perhaps begin to move technology in a more sustainable direction.

Or not. Maybe we are a parasite who will, likely to our own detriment, use up all the resources this planet has to offer and leave it a barren hunk of stone slowly hurtling toward its star.

Curious though that you latched on to the birds nest part of the analogy and left the beaver dam alone.


JBArk

hehe thought I'd quote Jerry Seinfeld here:

"I find the human fascination with water is amazing. We're constantly going to beaches, pools, lakes, rivers, we're swimming, we're snorkeling, we're-we're scuba diving, we bathe in it, our bodies are mostly made of water, everyone is caring around these bottles of water. We can't get enough water, unless it rains then we're like, "Oh, look I'm soaked. I am literally drenched." For some reason we have a huge problem with small flying water. I-It'll just stop us right in our tracks. "Uh, I felt a drop, We're gonna get caught in it! Everyone cover your water bottles, run!!"

I say the same thing about beaver dams and I think they play a key role in river ecosystems and should be left alone, instead removing them out of fear for the ecosystem which is sometimes done. All of the "dustruction" that is significant to us caused by beaver dams is to flooding property and railways etc..and the issue of the trees that are used..that only becomes an issue in fragile ecosystems that we have pretty much raped and left in such a fragile state.

Beaver Dams are an important part of wetland ecosystems and can acually help tpo restore them. They also help conserve the water levels within the ecosystem and can raise the water table of an area.

I agree with you that everything we do an make is natural. Which is why I prefer the term coherance when trying to explain the difference between some of the things humans are doing and what other animals do.

I dont believe that humans are inherantly parasitic. I also think that if most people were given a viable option they would choose a more sustainable system..but again there is a political agenda at the moment that has a lot fo weight behind it. You cant expect the adverage person to really fight against that to the degree that is necessary when most people are entirley removed from both the reality that it might be necessary and the rest of the living biosphere from which they were birthed.

Better education for all people about these issues is probly something that is most needed.

jbark, I was wrong to question your logic circuits. My bad. I was responding to something that hixidom had said, his entire post actually--something to which you chimed in with in agreement.


Personally, I believe that if humanity is to continue, we will need to let technology, high tech anyway, fade out and become much less a part of our lives. or just take a break from it for a generation or two, come back to it when and if we grow up a bit. But that's just my personal belief, one which I will let go if proven wrong.

Saying that technology is natural...is a logical sounding position. mere samantics, i suppose. I like the technology of cob. Mix clay containing soil with sand and add some straw, build a durable and beautiful house which is energy efficient. Much like the beaver dams and birds nests mentioned earlier. Awesome technology, that. And it's a lot funner to build that way, compared to mainstream building. Ever hear of voc's? It's all good vibes bouncing off of cob walls and cassien paint. The stuff bouncing off of treated lumber and acrylic paint is some ill stuff. The internet is cool too, in small, small, occasional doses.

Getting back on track, how about this:



Hmmm, digital technology is a product of a rather exploitative paradigm, one that treats nature as a resource to be consumed and left to suffer and die. Computers that are smarter than us and view us as animals....terminator and matrix were popular movies.

If technology kills off enough of the pollinators, to the point where our crops can not grow, it will be okay, because robot bees are in development.

If you can see that as a good thing, or if you see technology as a panacea, then maybe your logic circuits have done gone kerflooey...or maybe there is a vitamin D deficiency, and/or you have simply contracted a toxic meme. Spend more time outside, with real old fashioned, bug n' poison ivy nature. It's better than plastic nature.

"technology = the cure for all ills"-- that meme reeks of toxicity, in my most humble, that is.

Love these simple realizations! A healthy dose of both is okay.

Earth is the mother though