It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you think technology/science is going too far?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I've never seen technology move from 1980-2006 so...quickly. It's just amazing. From 1 MB harddrives to 1 GB harddrives, from 2D to 3D, etc. That's been in a span of 26 years. 26! What will happen in another 26 years? Or 50? Or 100? It's really scary to think about the future. I mean, some of the research that scientists have been doing is great, but don't you think there's a limit? Do we really need everchanging technology? I seriously think everything is fine today, but science always moves ahead. What happens when it steps over the line? When computers go the speed of light, when robots are used more, when graphics look like movies, when there will be several medical breakthroughs, etc.

I think it would be fine if technology stayed the same, with only medical technology progressing. But of course this won't happen, and probably in 10 years, technology will be so good, less and less people will be needed for some jobs. Computer jobs, jobs taken over by robots, machines that can repair themselves (I'm sure it's possible), will eliminate such a large percentage of the workforce.

Who knows how far technology will go. Will it go too far? Too less? Will it stop somehow? Some new technoloiges I'm excited for, but I really think there's a limit to everything.




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
something that I stumbled upon just a few days ago while surfing wikipedia is an interesting theory I think you might find as a good read. It deals with the rapid increase in technological advances and the fact that it is possible for the human race to simple reach a level where technology will evolve so fast that it will be a a singularity or zero point. Its basis is that once AI is created, it will so rapidly create new technology that major advances (i.e. computer technology in the 1970s) will occur everyday. This wikipedia article does an excellent job at explaining it.

Technological Singularity



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
That was a good article. However, A.I's and nanotechnology, etc. will create no need for regular humans and will either create superhumans or augmented humans. Either that or A.I.'s will just take over. We really don't need fancy complex super A.I.'s or extremely sophisticated nanotechnology. What I do think we need however are more medical breakthroughs and much more space exploration. Space stations and centers would help greatly with population. We need some technology, but not all of it.

Another thing I thought about is if terrorist groups or cults, etc. take this technologies and use them for themselves. Imagine if China suddenly started cloning supersoldiers to take over the world? Or if Russia used nanotechnology to replicate supersoldiers and goo that would eat the world. Or if Japan started making sophisticated robot soldiers filled with complex A.I.'s? No, there NEEDS to be a limit to technology. If there isn't, humans will find a way to kill each other through sophisticated and EXTREMELY deadly means. If we continue screwing around with nanotechnology and A.I.'s, we WILL destroy ourselves. The research for all these things need to stop.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Amschel Rothschild]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
That is a very calus statement. Why do want medical technology to only progress? Do you know how advancements are made in the medical field?

Step over the line - when has science ever stepped over the line?

Currently, scientist are pretty much looked upon as social outcast and despised for what they stand for. Technology only progresses as far as the funding will allow it. It is very expensive and time consuming in some cases, and there arenot enough scientist in the US seems to be the common thought. Combined numbers of practicing engineers/scientist is at around 3.47 million in the US. Barely 1%. What does the rest of the barely 99% do? NOt to say that they are in anyway less important or not worthwhile.

What technology do you 'think' we need and why?We have already seen several times in history what happens when limits are imposed on human thought. The action is usually genocide or a mass witch hunt.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
First off I would like to say hello to all of the ATS members. I have been reading your threads for awhile but I have just became a member... Ok look. My take on it is this. I think we need technology in order for the human race to advance. With heightened intelligence we will soon realize that war and competition is pointless. War leads to death. PERIOD. I dont think anyone will argue about that. Competition is a major cause of war. Look at football for example. Football teams strive to be the best. The ultimate crown is the SuperBowl. Games are just like war to see who will come out on top. But the thing is that it is just a game. War causes people to be killed. THATS REAL LIFE. With extra intelligence comes an extra sense of awareness. We will soon be aware that Human life is more important than War over land, oil, money, etc... Technology will be the next phase in human evolution. In about 20 years, humans will be smarter, faster, stronger. You may even be able to say we will be GOD like. Some may find it to be scarry to think about but I think thats why we are here. I am not a really religious person but I heard somewhere that we were created in the image of GOD. Since GOD can do anything, why cant we?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Step over the line - when has science ever stepped over the line?


Atom bomb - and nuclear weapons.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
science has not gone to far not be a long shot.
there is only one thing which went to far and that is the church
in say we may not help our self with technology sometimes i got
the feeling they want you to die before you use technology for a cure.
like gen threatment ect they say you may not use it because we are not gods and we may not use the material of god.:S
but if we can cure milions were is the church and there spirit of good will
for all people.

science can used for all good. nuclear energy to even a nuclear bomb if used good and when needed. like in an astroid blaster,.

but people are made afraid by religion we have seen this for ages.. people of science ended up hung or burned to dead. because people were afraid of what they created or what he was doing and the church labelled them as witches and they were centest to dead.

its only the way of using science and technology.. but we haven't gone to far.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekiel

Originally posted by Frosty
Step over the line - when has science ever stepped over the line?


Atom bomb - and nuclear weapons.


why is that please tell me way?

so you rather have not lifed? because if the usa didn;t use
it many of your family will have died in a long war with japan
and germany. if not used in japan the usa may have lost the war
and the war in Europe will have been lost shortly with out the support of usa.

and if it was used again with in the short term future because of securing humankinds future , destroying a comet with an nuclear powered weapon or an directed nuclear blast are you then still against it ?

nuclear power can be used in many ways don't say you are against it with out explaination. and yes if used wrongly it is dangerously. but look at it there have been no plumes of nuclear radiance since the explosion in the ussr.

all test have been underground.

nuclear weapons have to be perfected so instead of a blast you get weapons like that of id4 alien space ship main weapon.
or a weapon with out the radiation of a bomb.

but it may save us one day ..

if there is peace on earth people say get away with weapons and militairy but then when an alien ship attacks were is the defence..?

if we are peacefull in a couple of centuries that doesn't mean we don't need nuclear weapons no more only better nuclear weapons if we might one day protect our self from an attack from out side earth.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
The last 26 years is nothing. The Wright Brothers made their flight in 1903. 102 years later, and we've been to the moon, and are making fairly regular space flights, and have a space station in orbit. Not to mention are entering the Hypersonic field. All in 100 years.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Amschel Rothschild why are you saying nanotechnology will be destroying ourselfs? if i might ask.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amschel Rothschild
That was a good article. However, A.I's and nanotechnology, etc. will create no need for regular humans and will either create superhumans or augmented humans. Either that or A.I.'s will just take over. We really don't need fancy complex super A.I.'s or extremely sophisticated nanotechnology. What I do think we need however are more medical breakthroughs and much more space exploration. Space stations and centers would help greatly with population. We need some technology, but not all of it.

Another thing I thought about is if terrorist groups or cults, etc. take this technologies and use them for themselves. Imagine if China suddenly started cloning supersoldiers to take over the world? Or if Russia used nanotechnology to replicate supersoldiers and goo that would eat the world. Or if Japan started making sophisticated robot soldiers filled with complex A.I.'s? No, there NEEDS to be a limit to technology. If there isn't, humans will find a way to kill each other through sophisticated and EXTREMELY deadly means. If we continue screwing around with nanotechnology and A.I.'s, we WILL destroy ourselves. The research for all these things need to stop.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Amschel Rothschild]


Well, about the robot soldiers I think that using more robots in the army is a good idea, eventually we will be able to replace soldiers, thus saving lives. Well, atleast on our side...



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
With the power of new technology will we really become more intelligent or will the neglegence of our power hungry leaders prove to be to much?

Or will we need a 1 system government (ie. NWO) to advance as a human race as a whole, using our technology for the better such as mkaing our lives easier in every way, or finidng another planet stable enough to support life. This one won't last forever, assuming that the advances in the medical field will be saving millions of lives that would have otherwise passed.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekiel

Originally posted by Frosty
Step over the line - when has science ever stepped over the line?


Atom bomb - and nuclear weapons.


I fail to see how this is relevant to 'stepping over tyhe line'.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
We are vulnerable that is all the reason I need to lobby for increased scientific funding. The faster we can get to a Type 1 civ the better.

Also Humans will not become extinct for a good long while, 19th Century Humans still live amoung us, we call them the Amish. I see no reason to doubt that Homo Sapiens won't continue to thrive for Hundreds of generations to come. Their capabilities will eventually become overshadowed by Augmented Humans, Cyborgs and Artificial Lifeforms, but I highly doubt they will replace humanity completely. That is unless the Unaugmented start a "Final Solution" movement to rid the world of any who would change the meaning of being alive. Human Zealots could trigger a brutal war that it would lose completely.

It all boils down to personal choice. In today's society you can choose to own a cell phone, it's not required like a land line(allthough most people would have you believe it is and for some it actually is true like Surgeons for instance), you can choose wether you want to have a computer with internet or not.

My point is lets just let people choose their own fate. If I want to get a Cochlear implant so my hearing is measurably better then before who are you to say that I can't? Do I have to be impaired in order to gain "moral" approval to enhance myself by any means that I choose? How bout inserting animal DNA into my genome to give me animal like characteristics like enhanced Nightvision? It's my choice not yours or the governments.



Who knows how far technology will go. Will it go too far? Too less? Will it stop somehow? Some new technoloiges I'm excited for, but I really think there's a limit to everything.


Scientific and technological progress is speeding up, some say it's doing so exponentially now. There are limits to everything, I just don't think we are anywhere near them as of yet.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Well, as for the thread title question, no I do not think science/technology is going too far, quite the contrary, I don't think it's going far enough, fast ehough.


I don't believe there should be a limit on science/technology, you do that, and something akin to the darkages is'nt to far behind.


Also, I don't think new technology is gonna screw up jobs, humans will always be needed, even with advanced A.I., atleast a few humans are needed for maintenance.

As for terrorist groups/cults getting tech, well, we'll hav e defences against said technology by the time.
Also, a cult is just a non-mainstream religion, so I don't think there would be alot of problems with cults and technology.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Well I am currently in my honour year at university doing Computer Science... and in my view computer technology is no where near where it needs to be...there more advancements in graphical power rather than processor power at the current rate.

My future career I hope to be using for front tehnology and after completing a module on advanced web technologies and the benifits of semantics for web(Search engines site referancing etc) and also in the benifits of Knowledge engineering, Natural language engineering, AI to name a few it can only become better...

You of course need to take a step back some times but to say lets stay in this technology state in my view is not in my view a human trate. I believe we have the need and the urge to further ourselfs.

Technology threshold well I believe that we can at the moment not imagine how far we can take technology advancements....anything possible to an extent. I believe we will be able to create life and it must be possible to bring it to the same state that we are in (Brain development).

To advance technology we may need the help of AI lets face it a never dieing PC going to advance far faster than us with computational power increasing and networking we will start to advance faster than ever before.

just my two cense



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
there arenot enough scientist in the US seems to be the common thought. Combined numbers of practicing engineers/scientist is at around 3.47 million in the US. Barely 1%. What does the rest of the barely 99% do? NOt to say that they are in anyway less important or not worthwhile.



The other 99% do things like care for the scientists when they get sick, teach their children, police their streets, defend their country, fix their cars, build their houses, produce their food, provide their entertainment etc. I think you get my point



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost

Originally posted by Frosty
there arenot enough scientist in the US seems to be the common thought. Combined numbers of practicing engineers/scientist is at around 3.47 million in the US. Barely 1%. What does the rest of the barely 99% do? NOt to say that they are in anyway less important or not worthwhile.



The other 99% do things like care for the scientists when they get sick, teach their children, police their streets, defend their country, fix their cars, build their houses, produce their food, provide their entertainment etc. I think you get my point


I don't think you got his point though, that 99% does not lend a hand towards tech development. Frankely I believe that it should be in the teens, there are many many people to take over the menial jobs(and if there aren't then Bots will) we are in a Knowledge Economy where the majority of us do not even know how to comprehend it fully. That is a dangerous trend.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I would say if we havent crosssed that detrimental line we are running at it with break-neck speed and a disregard for what happens when we inevitably trip crossing it. I don't have the first fear of AI or any other similar computer-centered technology because we have all seen how wonderful a job of programming humans do (Microsoft Windows, etc). For every solid piece of software written by dedicated programers there are just as many if not more bug ridden and inefficient ones out there. Where I think we are toying with disaster is in the area of genetics and manipulation of DNA. Comparing DNA for criminal invesigtaions is fine, but when we start modifying it we are in effect reaching inside a running engine (Evolution) with only a small idea of wtf we are doing, and eventually were going to screw the whole thing up.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
sardion2000, I understand the point that we need more scientists just fine. My point is that not everyone or even 15% of the population can be a scientist. I also wonder if that statistic factors in other fields like engineering, or industrial design??? Even in a commercial company the scientists doing research makes up a small portion of it because they need people directing the scientists on what to research next, people to engineer products around their breakthroughs, sales and marketing people to bring it to market, HR to make sure the scientists get paid etc..

I think of it like a supply demand equation, when more scientists are needed there will be more. I know it's not quite that simple, but I hope you see my point.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join