Challenge Match: Agarta vs Isyeye: Inventing Peace

page: 1
11

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Technology will eventually put an end to most forms of violence.”

Agarta will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Isyeye will be arguing the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

The ATS character limit will limit the length of debate posts. Multiple posts per round are not permitted.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

There will be no time limit for responding, however if a debater believes he will take more than a day or two to respond, it would be courteous to let the opponent know in advance that you still intend to continue when able.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges, if judges are available.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Before we begin, I would first like to thank the Vagabond for presiding over this debate and for giving both isyeye and I the opportunity to take part in this, one of the most prestigious forums on ATS. Although both isyeye and I are new to this forum and this is our first debate apiece, I feel confident that both of us can contribute to this forum in a positive and informative way. Although this is a battle of opinion based on presented facts, I think the true winner of this contest will be the audience. To my opponent isyeye, I say thank you for taking the time to engage in this debate and good luck.

 



[align=center]"Technology will eventually put an end to most forms of violence"[/align]


Throughout History, We can plainly see, the more technologically advanced we are, the more sophisticated our weapons become. From the first hunting spear our tools have been used against each other for gaining goods, territory, and dominance or even simply out of fear and anger. As seen in the ancient Oriental Arts even our basic tools of agriculture have been dual purposed to either defend from or create violence. Some say technology feeds violence and vice versa, and this has been true for the most part and does continue today in many ways. For instance we began to throw rocks and it proved to be so effective we continued the development of throwing rocks harder and faster which led to more and more effective forms of throwing rocks.

With each new technology that is understood multiple weapons are created as well from rockets and bombs to lasers and sound weapons, but what is it that feeds this desire to create weapons of violence and destruction? The answer is the same as it has always been, gaining goods, territory and dominance or fear and anger. The need for violence is a mental occupation of the Human mind. We humans are always looking for the newest technology in weaponry in order to gain an edge over the opposing side. It has never been about balancing the playing field, but it has begun to shift from coming in and eliminating our opponents to more of an intimidation factor.

With the development of the nuclear technologies the fear has risen, but the intimidation slowed down the automatic response to simply attack and this has altered our warfare and fighting style (not to say the nuclear threat has been eliminated), but what of individual violence outside the battlefield? It remains as unarmed combat or hand held weapons (sticks, stones, and sharp edges) which is the same as it has always been only more advanced. With this I submit that violence is Human nature and technology simply makes it easier to commit. It is a state of the mind and not the technological advancements themselves.

The state of mind is what dictates which direction the technology advances. If the state of mind changes, so too does the direction of technological advancements. It is my belief that if the state of mind shifts to defense rather than offense and we let go of our nature for logical thought, due to the opinion of being tired of living in fear, the technology will change from throwing rocks, light or sound to blocking them. Once this technology has been perfected on an individual level, each person would then be protected from each other. Violence would drastically drop due to the fact that injuries could not occur in most cases. Is this possible in today’s day and age? No, but the future is what we choose it to be.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I would like to start this debate by thanking Agarta for the willingness to debate this interesting topic, The Vagabond for the time and effort involved in making this debate happen, for everyone else involved, and to those of you taking the time to read these words. Hopefully, this debate can help spark the Debate Forum back into activity, and get other ATS members involved in the debates here.

And now, on to our debate:


[align=center]"Technology will eventually put an end to most forms of violence.” [/align]

As my side of the debate is to show how technology will NOT put an end to most forms of violence, I will try to illustrate to the reader that despite the many positive benifits of technology, violence in all of it's horrible forms will continue despite any advancements in the world of technology. As most readers will understand the definitions of technology and violence, I will not quote them here, but add a couple links just in case.

Reference #1 : Violence
Reference #2 : Technology

The best place to begin is to understand that violence is an inherent part of the animal kingdom (which we are a part of), the world of plants, and nearly every other form of life that we know to exist. Lifeforms of all types inflict violence or kill for various reasons including the necessity to eat, to establish domination, and in many cases self-defense. These are realms of violence that will inevitably be nearly impossible for we as humans to escape.

Although many may not want to see the act of killing another living thing as an act of violence, it must be seen that we have indeed acted violently in order to survive due to our need for substanance. By definition, violence is an unjust act, and in most cases the food we use is done thru human ways, but it is still violence that procures our means to continue existence. This does not mean that we have acted in an immoral or unethical manner, only that we have engaged in an act of violence to ensure our continued survival. Although we are reaching a place in technology where many things such as food can be artificially produced, they are generally recieved by the population with disgust and sceptisism. Whether a human being chooses to eat meat, or be a vegetarian, we must commit an act of violence to eat, and food created artificially will most likely never be mass produced to the point of removing this area of violence from the world.

Probably the most understood form of violence that we see today comes in the form of disputes and war. Since the dawn of man, we have been improving our weapons to not only better hunt, but to remove threats from our territorial homes. We began with simple sticks and stones, and have now entered a world where Weapons of Mass Destruction threaten the peace of the Earth on a daily basis. Along the way, we have created every imaginable devise to eliminate our enemies. Thru technology humans have become experts in violence, and how and where it is most crucial to inflict it. Not only because of weapons themselves, but thru things such as satellite tracking systems, photo imagery, and other such devises, technology has only pushed violence to more extreme levels, and as we advance human knowledge, there is very little evidence to show that we as humans will change our perspective towards violence.

As long as technology improves weaponry, self-defense will become even more important. In our world today, items such a Tasers are common place, and will continue growing in usage as technology improves the size, convenience, and effectiveness of these types of "self-defense weapons". While the act of self-defense may not always be seen as an act of violence, it is indeed a part of a violent act, and worth noting. As long as violence exist, there will be a need to defend one's self.

In the last hundred years of human civilization Television, Radio, and similar forms of techological entertainment have become one of the most common sources that influence mankinds thinking. Since the invention of these things, the violence that is included in the programing has only increased exponentially. Just a few decades ago, graphic depictions of violence were generally censored, or edited to excluded the worst of these cases. Today, we have many channels on our TV's that are dedicated just to violent programing. Video games have also put violence at the fingertips of our children, and began a process of desensitising our youth to the effects of violence.

Socratic Questions

#1 : Is violence necessary for the existence of life?

#2 : In what way has technology been proven to remove violence?

#3 : How can technology be used to reduce the need for weaponry, and it's purposes?

#4 : Can technology develop mass produced food that will be accepted by people?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Although I will address my opponents questions posed in their opening statement, I would like to take this post to address the definitions of violence and technology. I submit that the definitions of both Technology and Violence posted by my opponent are not complete and concise, but are the very basic of definitions. I therefore submit, to begin with, the Wiki pages for both Technology and Violence as clearer definitions (a simple search will give you these pages). Please keep in mind that these are not intended to replace the definitions but to expand on them.

In my opponents opening post they refer to “violence” within the animal world. As the definitions point to violence being of a moral judgment based on the views of Man as well as the term “untamed” used in the link provided by my opponent as a definition of violence (World English Dictionary section) and the fact that Nature itself cannot be tamed or held to Human standards, I will not be addressing this angle as part of this debate. However, there are two issues of Nature I will address, those being, Human Nature and the violence of Man on Animals.

This brings me to Question #1. “Is violence necessary for the existence of life?” In Nature, the answer to this is yes. This “violence” is essential for removing disease and the weaker links in the chain of life in order to maintain the delicate balance that Nature is. With Man, on the other hand, the answer is no. We Humans have the capability of rising above our own Nature. In these regards I direct you to a lecture given by James Leach Chair in Anthropology at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland given on August 22nd, 2008 in which he states

Violence is always an emotive subject. It is always a political subject. It is always a moral matter. And that is because of our views of what it is to be human, and how that somehow involves controlling and civilizing human nature. We see culture as moral, nature is not supposedly a moral entity. Morality is confined to humans because it involves free will and choice.
he goes on to state

Morality, fear, voyeuristic enjoyment, and incomprehension are all feelings we might associate with violence in others. Anger, jealousy, lust, hatred, these are explanations we might put forward for violent acts. So violence or aggression is something which is obviously bound tightly into our ideas of a moral universe.
Source: thoughtmesh.net...

This chart shows what is considered violence within the Human Society although violence against animals is not included.


Question #2 “In what way has technology been proven to remove violence?” Unfortunately Technology has only begun to address this issue and there are only a few examples of it for us today. Due to the technological advancements in the medical field, Pharmaceuticals are a move forward in controlling a persons desire toward violence. In the public arena, Cell phones have become a deterrent. Someone talking on or pretending to be talking on a cell phone can detour an attack of violence (not always for sure). In the warfare department the design and implementation of Electromagnetic Bombs used to wipe out electronics and communication is a step beyond the basic blow them up approach www.globalsecurity.org...

Question #3 “How can technology be used to reduce the need for weaponry, and its purposes?” Currently there are not very many technological advances in this field save for what are considered nonviolent deterrents such as sound weapons used in crowd control. Most times even having a visible deterrent can lower the possibility of violence. There are other methods of crowd control such as high pressured water but again that is up to the observer as to whether or not it is considered violent. Does this mean in the future more Human deterrents will not be created? No. It simply means technology is not there yet.

Question #4 “Can technology develop mass produced food that will be accepted by people?” Of course, this is a new field of development. The better we understand the process the better the process will be. Will the people accept it? That depends on how it is done, if it is safe, and how it is put out to the public.
 


Socratic Questions

Question #1: Given the knowledge that violence is based on Humanities moral codes, is it your opinion that Humanity will not, at some point in the future, come to a point that they will not demand the need for technology to repress violence of any kind?

Question #2: Do you think that, through the advancements of technology including medical advancements into the human brain, the Human species cannot overcome the Human Animal desire to commit violence?

Question #3: Do you see that technology has a limit in advancement?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Rebuttal #1:

To save some time, and condense everything into a short amount of space, let me begin my rebuttal by answering my opponents Socratic questions.

Question #1: Given the knowledge that violence is based on Humanities moral codes, is it your opinion that Humanity will not, at some point in the future, come to a point that they will not demand the need for technology to repress violence of any kind?

It is not technology that is needed for the repression of violence. It is a change in the thinking of mankind itself that is the only hope of reducing violence in the world. As far as we have come as a species, we have only begun understanding that material items take away from the functions of humanity.

Question #2: Do you think that, through the advancements of technology including medical advancements into the human brain, the Human species cannot overcome the Human Animal desire to commit violence?

While technology has brought us some insight into the working of the human mind, it cannot change what we are, and violence will continue to have it's place within our civilization. The future may be vastly different from today, but violence is will remain a constant.

For example, the graph below shows the in the court cases over the last few decades, violence has remained at a constant level despite technology advancing more rapidly than ever. It must also be noted that weapon charges are not included in the statistic of violence, but under public order. The violence statistic could be increased in cases involving weapons if the charges would not have been brought and the cases would have escalated.



Question #3: Do you see that technology has a limit in advancement?

Of course it does, but we're far from reaching it's limitations. Technology will most likely advance in the future until the point that we come full circle as a species, and realize that technology holds us back from achieving the power that dwells within the human mind, and that advanced technology isn't really needed to reach the full potential of mankind. It's only in this achievement that violence can be mostly eliminated from society.


Technology has brough the human race far from it's roots. A large part of the world has access to cell phones, computers, televisions, and other such advancements, but violence has always been a constant despite a few of the benifits that technology has brought. Our weapons may have become "smarter", and be used in many cases more as a deterant than as a weapon to muder, but these cases are in a minority, and these type of weapons only exist because of violent acts themselves. The main issue between technology and violence is that violence cannot be eliminated from society. Population expansion causes increases economic tension in urban area, and this easily escalates into violent outcomes. A very good paper on the subject can be read below.



Reference #1

What effects will urban growth and its consequences have on civil stability, in particular on the incidence of mass violence? This paper addresses this question. First, we briefly review the theory and evidence on the nature of urban violence and the sources of urban growth. We then consider the insights and shortcomings of past research on links between urban growth and violence. This early work, we argue, suffers from oversimplification and narrow focus. Some recent anecdotal evidence suggests that urban growth may contribute to violence as an interactive variable by amplifying the effects of other forces that are potential causes of urban conflict.


My Socratic Questions:

Question #1: In order for technology to eliminate most of the violence in the world, will the Earth have to become an Utopian Society for it to be effective?

Question #2: Can technology fix our expanding population growth, and the violence that exist because of it in our urban environments?

Question #3: How does technology reduce the problems of dwindling resources that in the future may lead to large scale wars for their control?

Question #4: Can the human race be transformed into a primaraly peaceful species thru technological adcancents?

Quesion #5: If in the future, technology does reduce violence, what will it's role be in keeping violence from returning to it's original place in the minds of men?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Question #1: In order for technology to eliminate most of the violence in the world, will the Earth have to become an Utopian Society for it to be effective? No, technology can lead us to a peaceful existence through what we perceive of the world around us. However, it is my belief that if we step away, in our thinking, from the student, Aristotle, and turn towards the Teacher, Plato, this transition could be easier.

Question #2: Can technology fix our expanding population growth, and the violence that exist because of it in our urban environments? There are 3 reasons for overpopulation in urban areas and thus higher violence levels.
    1. The rural poor move in.
    2.The unemployed and the underemployed move out of the city into the urban areas.
    3. Those born in the urban areas that remain in urban areas.
Although there are plans being discussed within the governments of the World that follow the chart below I do not personally believe that population thinning or extreme birth control techniques are necessary.
Through technology, new agriculture techniques, like multi-level hermetically sealed buildings, can be implemented making it cheaper and safer to remain in rural communities as well as address the growing need for resources. Through technology, new cheaper architecturally sound buildings can be built using cheaper renewable resources, grown in rural areas, and structured with housing and businesses together. Not to mention through technology the cities would no longer be restricted to the ground. All of which promote jobs, which in itself will cut down on violence. During the 1982 International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA) 4th World Conference under the auspices of UNESCO, a UN-Committee was formed in order to research violence and the Human race. In 1986 these findings were presented, known as “The Seville Statement on Violence” and it contained the following 5 core ideas.

“It is scientifically incorrect to say that…” 1. “we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.”
2. “war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.”
3. “in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behavior more than for other kinds of behavior.”
4. “humans have a ‘violent brain’.”
5. “war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.”
Source: eprints.ucm.es...

This Statement showed scientific information that violence within society was not biological in nature and therefore a product of our environment and external stimuli. As the Human tendency towards violence is obtained from the World around us and technology is a major part of that in todays World, it is safe to say, any form of media, be it Audio, Video, Interactive, or even EMR(Electromagnetic Resonance)as a possibility for the future, can be used to guide the Human species away from violence. Just as all forms of media today from Advertising, News, Movies, Music, Books, Magazines, newspapers, and the internet push aggression and sex because that’s what sells, so to can peace, respect, forgiveness, etc. There will come a day I believe that the people will finally have had enough and collectively say stop the violence and technology will be there to help break the habits.

For questions #3, #4(I am going to assume this is a spelling error for advancements as I can’t find a definition for adcancents and AdConsent is a company name)and #5 please refer to the answer to question #2.


 

Socratic Questions

 

    #1. If the general consensus of the people were to change to that of peace why would technology not be used?

    #2. Do you see technology used in passive defense as an impossibility?

    #3. In the interest of overpopulation do you not see a possibility of technology being used to create coastal sea bed communities?

    #4. If these sea bed communities become possible is it too farfetched that scientific technology cannot find a way of growing and harvesting undersea farms to subsidize the need for food?

    #5. Other than the Desire of Humans for aggression, what holds technology back from helping eliminate violence?


Poseidon Underwater Hotel



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
#1. If the general consensus of the people were to change to that of peace why would technology not be used?

For the general consensus of the people to choose a path of peace, they would also need to come to the realization that technology has had a large role in the promotion of violence. It's not that technology will evaporate from society, but that true peace comes from the mind, not from anything material. Peace can only come from people working for peace, not from technology.


The technology we need most badly is the technology of community, the knowledge about how to cooperate to get things done. - Bill McKibben


#2. Do you see technology used in passive defense as an impossibility?

Technology used as passive defense is battling against violence, therefore, the violence would still continue to exist. Mankind can create any type of defense technology, but it's purpose exist because of violence.

#3. In the interest of overpopulation do you not see a possibility of technology being used to create coastal sea bed communities?

Sure, technology can be used to develop such communities, as it has been used in urban areas to build high rise housing, but just because the technolgy can create large scale housing, it cannot stop violent acts from taking place within it's walls. A perfect example can be found in the history of Cabrini-Green in Chicago.

en.wikipedia.org...


Several infamous incidents contributed to Cabrini–Green's reputation. In 1992, seven-year-old Dantrell Davis was killed by a stray bullet while walking to school with his mother. In 1997, nine-year-old "Girl X," was raped and poisoned in a stairwell, leaving her blind, paralyzed and mute.[8] Members of the infamous street gang, the Gangster Disciples, who controlled most of Cabrini–Green, were ordered by the gang's leaders to find the person responsible for the crime and brutally assault him. The attacker, Patrick Sykes (who was not a gang member), was later apprehended by police and sentenced to 120 years in prison


#4. If these sea bed communities become possible is it too farfetched that scientific technology cannot find a way of growing and harvesting undersea farms to subsidize the need for food?

If sea bed communities become a reality, it is very possible to find a way to develop undersea farming, but undersea farming doesn't necessarily require sea bed communities for it's development. As stated in my my opening statement, the need for food to creates a situation of violence towards what is eaten. Although many people may not hold the belief that a plant is a living, feeling entity, there are belief systems such as Buddhism that feel differently. If one places themselves in the position of BEING a source of food, they can see it more clearly as an act of violence.

#5. Other than the Desire of Humans for aggression, what holds technology back from helping eliminate violence?

Not only is the desire for aggression a limitation for the elimination of violence, the enviroment in which we live keeps technology from having a more active role. Population expansion, limited resources, social issues, and even governmental control are factors that technology can have only a limited role in. Technology cannot prevent common domestic violence. That can only come with the changing of the attitudes of humans themselves. It cannot fix illogical laws that do not prevent those who have mental disturbances from hurting themselves or others. That again must lie in the changes of the human condition, and the laws that have been placed before us.



Technology has done may things for us a species. It has given us more comfortable homes, it has given us greater access to resources and information, and it has led to many medical advancements. What it has not done, or shown to be able to do, is prevent the daily acts of violence that have existed with man since before we have the insight to understand. It cannot stop the murder of a small child during a drive-by shooting, it can't stop an unrightfully angry man from abusing his wife, and it cannot stop the violence that occurs because of the abuse of government and the violent acts against it.

My Socratic Questions:

Question #1: Can technology fix the problems of the governments of the world, and the violence that occurs when the people revolt against it?

Question #2: Does technology always reach those with emotional problems to prevent acts of violence toward themselves or others?

Question #3: If it is possible for technology to greatly reduce, or eliminate violence, how long into the future must mankind wait for such a world to exist?

Question #4: If technology can eliminate violence, why has it yet to do so?

Question #5: If violence is eliminated due to technology, will there be unforeseen consequences to humanity?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Question #1: Can technology fix the problems of the governments of the world, and the violence that occurs when the people revolt against it? I think it is up to the people of the World to change their mindset before anything can happen, but once it does technology can be used to further this change. It’s the mindset used in the creation of technology that is the issue here. It is the questions being asked that guides technological advancements. If the questions change so do the technological advancements and their uses.

Question #2: Does technology always reach those with emotional problems to prevent acts of violence toward themselves or others? No it doesn't but this is due to the way technology is being used today. Used in another way the World could begin to cry, or laugh, or become dormant and zombie like simply doing what they are told without question. Yet in another way it can be used to teach responsibility and proper etiquette, an extreme example of this is that the Governments raise the children in a positive, violence free, technological environment outside the influence of the home and surroundings. Once this happens it may take up to 3 generations to fully be accepted. The old saying "The children are our future" is the key. By using technology to reach the children in a positive violence free form they can alter the course of Human interaction.

Question #3: If it is possible for technology to greatly reduce, or eliminate violence, how long into the future must mankind wait for such a world to exist? The answer to this is based on how long it takes society to alter their train of thought. Once society has finally stood up against violence of any kind, technology can assist in eliminating it. Again as stated in my answer to question #2, it could take up to 3 generations to achieve, once this point has been reached.

Question #4: If technology can eliminate violence, why has it yet to do so? The mentality of the Human mind is still based on negative associations due to emotion and therefore the technology being developed is done so through this train of thought. A simple shift in thought will give rise to an unknowable amount of technological breakthroughs not based on control, money, fear, violence, aggression, greed, etc.

Question #5: If violence is eliminated due to technology, will there be unforeseen consequences to humanity? Sure, just as there may be unforeseen benefits as well. As they are/may be unforeseen, it will have to be dealt with when recognized.

Although violence has always been an issue, the World does not have to accept it as being outside our control. As long as violence has existed, there have also been systems in place to combat it such as Religion, Philosophy, Legal and Communal. Yes none have been completely successful and in a lot of cases made the situation worse. We now live in a World where science and technology have been added to the arsenal in combating violence. Through science and technology we have been able to narrow down the causes of violence including “at risk” categories, for example, as seen in the chart below from a
study done in 2000 , the majority of violent deaths are related to suicide. With this type of knowledge gives us the opportunity to address the specifics of violence and where they occur.
Through the use of science technology the issues can be addressed and eliminated given the Global desire to do so and the funds redirected from warfare to peace.
 

Questions

 

#1.Assuming that the violence in urban areas cause disinvestment, as the atmosphere was no longer conducive for business, Do you think that the use of technology could reverse the situation?

#2. According to your link describing Cabrini–Green, the violence was created by neglect and gangs moving in(which I also believe was due to neglect), Do you think this situation could have been avoided through the use of better technology?

#3. Is it possible, through the proper use of technology(ie, cell phones, panic buttons, etc) date and domestic abuse violence could be lowered?

#4. As prices of technology continue to drop, could
Smart homes become standard in new homes to help promote violence free zones?

#5. Because you feel that even harvesting plants is violence, if, in the future, scientific technology could grow a safe alternative to all kinds of food would this still be considered violence against living organisms?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
#1.Assuming that the violence in urban areas cause disinvestment, as the atmosphere was no longer conducive for business, Do you think that the use of technology could reverse the situation?

No...however technology may be used to help monitor urban areas, and find areas that are in need of improvement. Reversing the atmosphere of violence that can be created in urban areas is more of a community effort to keep violence from taking control in the first place. Programs such as neighborhood watches, substance abuse counceling, and general education are the keys to protect urban environments from being dominated by violence.

#2. According to your link describing Cabrini–Green, the violence was created by neglect and gangs moving in(which I also believe was due to neglect), Do you think this situation could have been avoided through the use of better technology?

Yes, neglect was a large part of the downfall of Cabrini-Green. The situation could not have been avoided solely through technology, as it was human error that caused the neglect, but technology could have been used for better monitoring thru video surveillance to try to prevent the gangs and other violent criminals from having such access to the property. This is one area that technology can have a role in.

#3. Is it possible, through the proper use of technology(ie, cell phones, panic buttons, etc) date and domestic abuse violence could be lowered?

Lowered, perhaps, eliminated or mostly reduced, not likely. Cell phones, panic buttons, and other technologies have existed on college campuses for quite a while now, and have had some success, but violence still remains an all to real part of life. Take a look at the murder rates for college campuses in recent years:



What is more alarming though is that the majority of violent crimes are never reported.

youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu...


A further problem with college crime reports is that many crimes go unreported to college authorities. A study by Sloan, Fisher, and Cullen (1997) found that only 35% of violent crimes on college campuses were reported to authorities.


It must be stated however that college campuses are generally safer than communities as a whole.


Moreover, approximately 93% of the crimes against students occurred off-campus. These results strongly indicate that college campuses are safe in comparison to the community as a whole.


Again, the reduction of violence lies mainly in how we percieve violence, what we do to prevent it, and how we treat those in society that may become violent offenders. Technology may have a place in these things, but it's the human mind that is the most efficient tool for eliminating violence.

#4. As prices of technology continue to drop, could Smart homes become standard in new homes to help promote violence free zones?

Yes...Smart homes can help promote violent free zones, but in limited ways. I can see that smart home technology has the potential to reduce the stress of the home environment by reducing expenses, cutting down on house work, and helping allow for more meaningful time usage. What it may not do, other than thru technology such as alarms, is stop the force of outside violence.

#5. Because you feel that even harvesting plants is violence, if, in the future, scientific technology could grow a safe alternative to all kinds of food would this still be considered violence against living organisms?

Not if the "food" was never alive. Everything that we consume is simply a combination of proteins, fats, vitamins, etc...and technology will someday have the capability to synthetically reproduce what we consume. What may be harder is for the human mind to accept them. We have been designed to eat what has once been a living entity, filled with energy, and it may be hard for mankind to change what we have been created to do from the beginning. Is it impossible?..No..but may be extremely difficult on a large scale.


When I think about how technology is used to reduce violence, and it's role in the future, this is the image that best illustrates how I see it.



en.wikipedia.org...(film)


A Clockwork Orange is a 1971 film adaptation of Anthony Burgess's 1962 novel A Clockwork Orange. It was written, directed and produced by Stanley Kubrick. It features disturbing, violent images, facilitating its social commentary on psychiatry, youth gangs, and other social, political, and economic subjects in a dystopian, future Britain


A Clockwork Orange is one of the best books or movies ever created to show that technology can be used to eliminated violence, but at a great cost, and ultimately will be unsuccessful. The mind, and what dwells within it, is simply greater than what those minds can create.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
The idea of technology developing to the point where we have little to no violence is an exciting one, but at the same time that very same technology could potentially go against everything I believe in, in getting there. I believe in the freedoms to make our own choices in life and the ability to live life as we see fit. If I wish for a world such as this I must understand that violence goes with it. If I wish to live in a world of peace where violence does not, for the most part, exist, I must give up my basic rights of privacy, medicine, etc. I must forgo the ability to travel or carry on my person certain things, etc.

As I look at this topic and delve deeper into what would have to be done in order to find peace, I find that it would take many if not all of the things TPTB are attempting to do and this shakes me to my core. It would be nice to have personal force fields to protect our persons, and in the future this may be a possibility, but for now we only have certain ways of eliminating violence. What it would truly take, I think, is for the entire Human population of this planet to grow up. By grow up I mean to take responsibility for our actions, to treat each other with respect, and stop acting like spoiled teenagers regardless of our age. It will take better understandings and changes in how we raise our children. It will take a change in mentality when it comes to education and entertainment. It will take an understanding of "one for all" instead of "all for one" and the acceptance of working together for a better world. All this will be guided by the type of technology we create.

Technology can create a safer, violence free future, but we must want it to, we must change our way of thinking, and accept the loss of personal rights to achieve it. I think if we wish to avoid a Global Dictatorship we must change our way of thinking and take on the responsibility and respect for ourselves. We need to simply come together, stand up, and say enough is enough. We need laws that allow us to get involved in stopping violence (within reason that is) without fear of retribution, be it incarceration or lawsuits.

In some ways I see the technology of the internet and social platforms as a benefit to the Human race as the desire to even know our neighbors names dwindles to nothing, we are actually reaching out more in the formation of a Global community. On the other hand I see that this pulling away from Human interaction of the person sitting across the room is hurting our local communities. It is easier to hide behind a keyboard and monitor than it is to look someone in the eye today. We have walked away from the lemonade stand down the street, or the block party celebrating little Tinas birthday all because of fear.


The lack of the feeling of community and togetherness has led to gangs on our streets and we look the other way out of fear of getting involved when getting involved it what we should be doing. We should be getting involved in watching all the kids at the park and not just our own. We should be getting involved in our communities be they small towns, large cities, countries, continents, or the planet as a whole. Technology can play a major role in helping, but it is the desire for change that must be accepted by everyone for anything to be successful.

I would like to thank isyeye for a great debate. I feel that, in our debate, it really moved beyond the understanding of technology and violence and gave us a bigger picture into the problems we face as a People in regards to violence and what really needs to be done in order to bring an end to it. Do I think it will be technology that brings about peace? I think it will be a major factor in bringing an end to violence, but without the Human desire for peace, technology will continue to do what it is made for.

 


Again I would like to thank isyeye for their participation in this debate and The Vagabond for taking the time to preside over it and giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate forum. I would also like to thank the ATS community for making it all possible.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I would like to begin my closing statement by thanking Agarta for a spirited and enlightening debate. While my position in this debate has been to show that technology cannot eliminate, nor reduce most of violent acts in our world, in must be conceded that it does indeed have a place in how we must see violence and work towards a less violent, more stable future. Technology alone may not be the answer to the problem of violence in society, but it cannot be completely taken out of the picture either.

I believe that Agarta and myself can agree on one fundamental truth about this topic, and that is that violence can only be dealt with by the power of mankind itself. It's within the hearts and minds of the people that inhabit this wonderful planet that peace can be found. It may be a long road to get there, and sometimes seem unobtainable, but peace is something worth "fighting" for. That fight is not a violent fight, but one of words, actions, and understanding.

During the course of this debate, I have had an extreme act of violence occur to someone I love dearly. It has made this debate VERY personal for me, and has highlighted the flaws in our system that miss important areas where violence is concerned. The very structure of our laws prevent those who need protection from violence from sometimes getting the protection they need. Is there a way for technology to assist in these areas...perhaps...It is a subject that there are no easy answers to, but as it stands today, and for the foreseeable future, technology has limitations that cannot allow it to stop violence at the root of the problem...In the minds of mankind.

We have created drugs, weapons, alarms, and many other technologies that are in the realm of dealing with violence, but very little violence has been eliminated from our existence. Is this because technology has failed?...no...It is because we have failed as a species to become greater than we have in the past. We have yet to learn from past mistakes made by our ancestors.

I would like to point out a wise statement made by my opponent in this debate, Agarta:


What it would truly take, I think, is for the entire Human population of this planet to grow up. By grow up I mean to take responsibility for our actions, to treat each other with respect, and stop acting like spoiled teenagers regardless of our age.


In this statement, it is clear to me anyway, that the power to make violence a thing of the past lies with each and every one of us, and until we accept our place in the world, and our responsibilities as humans, violence will continue to plague society. If technology can find a way to achieve the reduction or elimination of violence, it is because we as humans have created it, and a change of thinking occured to produce the result. Technology is simply a tool created from the minds of humanity, and any advancement it has towards eliminating violence must be accepted as the product of the human mind, and what it can achieve.

Again, my humble thanks to Agarta for taking part in this debate, and for the mutual respect shown towards each of us. Thanks to The Vagabond for the hard work and dedication it takes in this thread, this forum, and to all of you reading theses words.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Congratulations to both fighters on their first debate. After a winner is declared this thread will be open for comment.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Isyeye has won the debate. A few points of the decision follow


Agarta has to be commended for arguing with a great deal of intellectual honesty, but at some points this came dangerously close to conceding the debate. Agarta's closing statement almost felt like an admission of defeat.



Both fighters made gambits that could have been rebutted against, perhaps decisively. Isyeye capitalized on Agarta's gambits best, especially in relation to using technology to overcome human nature and the fact that self-defense technologies are usually still violent on some level. The photo from Clockwork Orange summed this up brilliantly. Then Agarta validated it with discussion of an dystopia.



Agarta won the argument against food as violence in the first couple of rounds with definitions, then let it go on again later. The definitions that Agarta introduced also could have been applied to pharmaceutical answers and EMP though, so maybe that's why it wasn't worth it to hammer those definitions home when the food issue came back up.





new topics
top topics
 
11

log in

join