It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


An argument for the Evolution of Human Technology

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:08 AM
It has been years now that I have been interested in alternative energy and other forms of sustainable systems. From my first introduction to these alternatives I was captivated as they are not only effective but in many ways magical in their simplicity.

As a professional landscape architect I deal with development across many scales everyday. I see first hand what human’s interventions on the planet are capable of, both positive and negative.

Considering why we as a people continue to procrastinate our switch from “brute force technology” to forms of technology that both effectively fill our needs and erase our impacts on our planet, I am always reminded of an article I read on the topic of “Democratizing Technology”.

The idea is this, technologies such as Photovoltaic Solar Panels in a closed system (that is a system that uses high end batteries for power storage) breaks down the current system of control in several ways. If people en masse were to switch to such systems those who produce power and those who transmit it loose their connection to those homes / businesses / what ever…

To me it always seemed rather benign but the more I study and the more I see lead me to consider more sinister motivations behind the continued stonewalling of the advancement of human technology.

It goes beyond high technology forms such as those that produce power also includes “traditional ecologic knowledge” that can also be applied to human systems to improve quality, efficiency, reduce impacts on natural systems, and restore self-reliance at the community level.

The bottom line is this, there exists, in large proportions, technologies that would not only advance our current systems but also improve our quality of life through empowering people, reducing negative impacts on the environment, and advancing the sophistication of our conceived systems. I firmly believe that the establishment’s refusal to allow these technologies to become mainstream goes far beyond greed for money; I also believe it has a lot to do with power.

Our dependence on the systems in place today makes us weak. Did you know that on average any given town or city has enough food to feed the population for only 3 days? If transportation was to break down for any reason there would be lots of hungry kids, or lots of kids eating “lawn pork”. This is an example that can be applied to so many of the things we take for granted—electricity, water, garbage removal, on and on.

These systems we live within do not change for a reason—control. So many of the theories surrounding the advancement of technology and design also contribute to the empowerment of people and empowerment is something the corporation and government do not want to see.

I believe that working collectively toward the development and integration of such technologies into our world and lives is paramount in our quest to free ourselves from subjugation. Why leave so many of the important issues that affect our lives in the hands of the corporate elite? Why accept inferior systems that not only leave us dependant, thus disempowered, but also directly cause us harm? The advancement of “Green Technology” has been given such a bad rap because they (the elite) fear the effects of such evolution.

While I know that there is many sides to the issue I raise I feel that I have done my best to avoid falling into any ideological slippery slope. Yes I am an environmentalist, though I like to think that I am not a wacko. I studied Political Science, Ecology, Sociology, and Landscape Architecture because I have a profound love for humans and for the natural world. I am not one of those who thinks humans must be separated from the natural world because we are dirty and evil little monkeys throwing our # all over the forest. Quite the contrary, I am one who believes that Humans ARE Nature. I see no reason why we cannot advance our technology to not only highly evolved levels in comparison to today’s

[edit on 4-12-2007 by Animal]

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:13 AM
...I see no reason why we cannot advance our technology to not only highly evolved levels in comparison to today’s standards but also do it in a way that creates harmony between human and natural systems.

sorry the last sentence got cut...

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:43 AM
Good post. I kind of agree with pretty much everything. But before our technology can evolve, we've got to evolve our ethics. As long as there's an elite group out there who wishes to control the flow of energy, there isn't going to be a major evolutionary leap in alternative energy. It's just going to move in baby steps so long as these leeches at the top continue to control the flow.

Even if they were removed, what's to stop the next bunch of greedy pukes from taking over the reins? I don't know... I suppose I'm jaded.

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:49 AM
ya maybe you are jaded, but for good reason.

you make a good point about the evolution of our ethics preceding the evolution of our technology, a point that makes this whole issue remarkably complex. just looking at the posts on the ATS boards you can se a huge disbelief on the issue of environmental degradation, and i don't think that the people here are such a bad cross section of society at large. how can we work towards improving our systems if everyone wants to hold onto them so tightly and criticize alternative points of view.

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by Animal

Plus, people don't seem too interested in alternative energy (mind you, the viable ones, not this 'free energy' perpetual motion nonsense). Just click on this link to see a list of threads I've authored. A lot deal with alternative energy. A lot are simply ignored. Maybe it's the wrong board for this sort of topic.

At any rate, most people are conservative at heart, so revolutionary ideas are hard to accept. Yes, even the most bleeding heart liberals are conservative at heart. The predictability of the familiar brings a certain comfort to most people. New ideas, new ways of thinking -- all scary since they're a step into the unknown.

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:38 PM
Grow Marijuana. It's really easy, great for the environment and can be processed into many different useful products. But, If Uncle Sam catches you growing, you are up sh8t creek . You want to talk about alternative energies? You can't leave out the oldest technology available that is condemned by our government. I wonder what the motivation is behind hiding alternative fuel sources is? It doesn't take a boy-genius to figure out that it is the pursuit of money and power.

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:52 PM
reply to post by Beachcoma

Beachcoma you are right in a sense. The government took all the best scientist and inventors and put them in their control. It's up to us citizens of our countries to become scientist and inventors without government knowledge if we want to become energy free. What started the universe and our solar system? It sure in the hell wasn't human ignorance or money and power. The energy is there to be had, we just have to figure it out. Go beyond what you read and learn in government schools and learn the real science.

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Solarskye
Go beyond what you read and learn in government schools and learn the real science.

Agreed. Me thinks the government schools aren't teaching you folk what you need to know.
US Teens Lag Behind in Science and Math

A dumb population is easier to control and influence.

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:35 AM
i agree with the need for cleaner, more efficient energy systems, but no matter what the situation there will be people who will prey upon the weak-minded. not everyone can work as a community or stake a plot of land and grow their own food.

i'm a firm believer that the evolution of technology is the devolution of man

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by Sacreligion

Cool thought Sacreligion, "the evolution technology is teh de-evolution of man"!
it is a cool though and is something I will need to spend some time contemplating.

the idea that "Not everyone can not everyone can work as a community", I am sorry to say I think is wrong. Community exists weather we like it or not.
To deny this point only disempowers us. While I am not saying that everyone has to hang out and be jolly, I do believe creating clearly defined and organized communities create to potential for states, nations, and the world to create stability. It is growing appropriately scaled communal systems.

when you stated, "not everyone can...stake a plot of land and grow their own food", I see your point but feel like you have possibly missed mine. I in no way intend everyone to give up their lives and become substance farmers, far from it. It is good that you bring up agriculture because it is a capstone of every society. the re-emergence of local agriculture will definitely play a huge roll in creating "Food security", still it does not meant hat everyone must be a farmer. In the US farming use to be the biggest employer, and farmers in the past were often some of the wealthiest in their communities. After the rise of the Agriculture-Industrial-complex so many farmers wee forced out of business by corporate farms that "farmer" is no longer even a job you can check off on the US census. Today in the US we have about a4.5% unemployment rate, why not put these people to work doing something like farming?

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:15 AM
i agree with you totally, but i think you misconstrued what i meant about communities and agriculture.

people(not ALL people, but many) have a tendency to fend for themselves and wouldn't be interested in working together for a better world. all they want is for their lives to be easier so they rely on money and technology to do that.

in terms of agriculture, many people are so far lost from the true ways of the earth that they would die quickly if they were forced to find their own food in the wild. it's a terrible statement, but it's true.

but then again, if the world were to crumble and people started getting hungry with no stores to buy food and supplies at, all of our resources would be gone in a year

call me an antagonist, but i call myself a realist. humans are greedy

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:06 PM
Great thread Animal,

Some good points raised by all, personally i see that the main problem for the application of alternative energy sources are that the corporations who own the status quo energy sources.

For example the corporations that control nuclear power, oil power and coal power have become so profitable and powerful through the accumulation of wealth.

They seem to be entrenched in the belief that the way is the only way. Wen an alternative solution gets presented, the aforementioned energy corporations will either buy the innovation and suppress or ridicule and therefore suppress alternative technologies. It truely is a sad state of affairs.

With relation to beachcoma's idea that mankinds ethics has to evolve, i agree wholeheartedly, you only have to look into the quagmire that we are stuck in, one with very little people with power with ethics. If those in charge had ethics would they rape the planet for an easy buck as they are doing now?

top topics


log in