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.


Technological Evolution an addiction?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:15 PM
I've been playing around with this theory and I didn't really know where else to post it. I thought people here might be a bit more interested. Even if you don't exactly agree with my theory, play along for a while at least.


Let's start with the fact that the basic meaning of all life on earth is to survive. In our case, it's not really the individual creature that is to survive, but the genes, which is done via replication, mating. Animals, even humans, select their mates based on how compatible they are, and on how good the chances of their combined offspring would be to survive, ie. what genecocktail would be the best for survival.
This might seem controversial, but even in todays human society a woman will sometimes have a child with one man, who might have the "best" genes (there are certain characteristics that convey these, they are usually detected and estimated on a subconcious level) and then raise the child with another man who has a better ability to provide for her and the child, the rich guy.
Human mating habits are one of the weirdest and most complicated ones in the world if you think about it. But I guess that has produced the best results so far, seeing as we're on the top of the foodchain.


Dopamine and seratonin.

When you're driving a fast car, bungee jumping, gambling or doing something else that is dangerous, for some people the body releases dopamine which gives the person a good feeling, a kind of high. This is sort of a reward the body gives to the person for doing something risky and getting away with it, and it encourages these people to take more risks. Back in the old days, this would be the person who is first out of the cave, who is first to explore the next unknown valley, who starts the first fire, the first to sail a boat across an ocean and so on. They are the spearhead of human evolution.
Without them I would not be here typing this.

For other people, when they're bungee jumping or doing something seemingly dangerous, the body releases seratonin, which gives them a bad feeling, like they didn't enjoy it. These are the people who stayed in the caves, kept the fire going, survived.
Without them we'd probably be extinct.

In other words, human evolution seems to be an addiction, like you have to certain drugs. While in most cases you could say this is a good addiction, but when does it become a bad one?

When is this fast-paced rate of evolution bad for our survival as a species?

I can imagine that the scientists who invented the nuclear bomb were on this dopamine high. They did something they knew was dangerous and got away with it -- dopamine injection.
I can also imagine the scientists who are pioneering in todays top-notch technologies also get on this high.

Personally I think this addiction becomes bad, or at least needs to be controlled and slowed down, when you start to invent, to create, a whole other "species" which rivals your own. I'm talking about machines and artificial intelligence, or rather the combination of those two.

Nowadays, every year, humans produce more new information than in the past few thousand years combined. The basic gist of Moore's Law is that he number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits doubles every year, which has actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy as industry struggles to keep up with it.

Once artificial intelligence suprasses human intelligence, and machines are able to create better versions of themselves, humans are no longer of use to them and might be seen as a rival and a threat, as these machines would be seen to humans aswell (it's in our nature) ... the danger is not imminent though, might take 50-100 years.

Are we digging our own graves by evolving technology at this rate, while our own minds, brains and bodies are not evolving even nearly at the same speed?

Just some thoughts and ideas. What are your opinions?

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:37 PM
Very good post!

Yes....Technology today are "evolving" way faster than we need it to, and people are of the idea that we always need the newest and better piece of equipment to always stay in front row with technology.
This actually makes people more slaves of the machines, then the other way around, always buying useless crap just because it is new. This is an addiction.

I grew up before the cellphone and the PC... Hell.. we didnt even have a VCR before i was 14 years old.
And guess what...we survived without it!!! yes... you actually don't need a cellphone!!!

This civilization is the work of man, who high-handedly and ignorant of the true workings of Nature, has created a world without meaning or foundation, which now threatens to destroy him, for through his behavior and his activities, he, who should be her master, has disturbed Nature's inherent unity." quote: Viktor Schauberger

Instead of inventing great technology to work for us, we have developed a world of entertainment technology, polution technology and artificial technology, in the form of medications to everything, from a butt scratching to a commen cold.

We must understand nature and copy its way of working, to live in harmony with nature instead of destoying it.
Technological development should have had this in mind, whenever they made a new invention.

There are ofcourse alot of technology like the computer, television, radio and all other kinds of technology, witch are very good inventions, that can actually help us if used correctly.

- where is the nontoxic fertilizer technology for agriculture?
- where is the waterpurification technology for our groundwater?
- where is the water-delivery technology for third world countries?
- where is the nonpoluting transportation technology?
- where is the nonpoluting energy technology?
- where is the selfsustaining house technology?

The "other spicies" you mention is allready here in the form of technology witch fights against nature instead of obaying her.

However artificial intelligence could always be re-programmed, and by the time they come close to developing real artificial intelligence, nature will allready have taking care of most people anyway.

technology should also have followed Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, witch clearly states that you must first take care of:
1. physiological needs
2. safety needs
3. Social needs
4. Esteem needs
5. self-Actualization

So lets focus on making some technology to helps us survive first and then turn to the development of useless technology

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:01 PM
Currently we've stunted our own evolution, since we effectively put an end to 'survival of the fittest' and anyone born who might be slightly different is immediatly put into surgery to 'fix' it, regardless if they're abnormality might be a useful trait or not, we've more or less stagnated. Our technology is pretty much the only way we can improve our species now, through genetics, cybernetics (hopefully soon), and so on. The problem is that most of us are so much against change, we don't want to improve and evolve. the majority of humanity doesn't want to be better than human, they want to stay the exact same.

new topics

log in