Is Technology Advancing at the Cost of Our Planet?

[robert80]

Dear all I would like to kindly ask you for your oppinion. I believe that technology as I see should be stopped at some point. I mean the basic science should evolve and the technology needed for basic science. Since the start of industrialization, we are fighting for let's say imaginary comfort. For this imaginary comfort we are paying very high price , we need to be much more productive and we are destroying the planet. In future, we would need to develop much higher technology in order to clean it to former non poluted state. And this just for the sake of comfort. It seems contradictory. Because with new technology how to clean the planet, we could ruin another natural balance and so on and on...So in future we will have to devolop medicines for the illnesses we will cause...

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

So what should we do?

 

[Pengwuino]

Go live in a forest for a year and you'll see how "imaginary" your comfort really is.

 

[russ_watters]

Dear all I would like to kindly ask you for your oppinion. I believe that technology as I see should be stopped at some point. I mean the basic science should evolve and the technology needed for basic science. Since the start of industrialization, we are fighting for let's say imaginary comfort. For this imaginary comfort we are paying very high price , we need to be much more productive and we are destroying the planet. In future, we would need to develop much higher technology in order to clean it to former non poluted state. And this just for the sake of comfort. It seems contradictory. Because with new technology how to clean the planet, we could ruin another natural balance and so on and on...So in future we will have to devolop medicines for the illnesses we will cause...

I'd wager a lot of money that if you didn't have all that "imaginary comfort", you'd be pretty upset.

 

[Danger]

I can understand your reasoning, Robert, but disagree with it. At night, I snuggle down in my bed and fantasize that I'm in a cave or log cabin (the latter comes from my Adventure Quest house). Even better is a cabin inside of a cave, to have full shelter from the elements and also keep out critters. It makes me very comfortable, especially when there's howling snow outside. My little pet sabre-tooth Lucy curled up behind my legs just makes it better. I have my thermostat permanently set at 27°, though, and have indoor plumbing, so I'm pretty sure that I would not be nearly as comfortable in a real cave or cabin. Also, I'm quite happy to have full access to vaccines and MRI's.

 

[Pattonias]

It seems to me that the current trends will lead to a reduction in our impact on the environment. If we were to stay the course and stop developing technology we would do more harm than good.

 

[Danger]

It seems to me that the current trends will lead to a reduction in our impact on the environment. If we were to stay the course and stop developing technology we would do more harm than good.

Agreed. Now, we have to start working on this population explosion. While I don't quite go along with China's enforcement policy, I am a firm believer in ZPG. Two kids per couple should be the maximum. I have personally contributed by having none, but that doesn't make up for the ex-wife spewing out 6 of the damned things before I met her.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Agreed. Now, we have to start working on this population explosion. While I don't quite go along with China's enforcement policy, I am a firm believer in ZPG. Two kids per couple should be the maximum. I have personally contributed by having none, but that doesn't make up for the ex-wife spewing out 6 of the damned things before I met her.

War, disease, and famine will take care of that.

 

[Danger]

War, disease, and famine will take care of that.

Folks a couple of generations back believed that same thing, and the world's population has doubled since then. I know that it's a cheery thought, but I don't believe it.

 

[yaang]

Dear all I would like to kindly ask you for your oppinion. I believe that technology as I see should be stopped at some point. I mean the basic science should evolve and the technology needed for basic science. Since the start of industrialization, we are fighting for let's say imaginary comfort. For this imaginary comfort we are paying very high price , we need to be much more productive and we are destroying the planet. In future, we would need to develop much higher technology in order to clean it to former non poluted state. And this just for the sake of comfort. It seems contradictory. Because with new technology how to clean the planet, we could ruin another natural balance and so on and on...So in future we will have to devolop medicines for the illnesses we will cause...

So you're saying we should do more research and develop even more new technologies which will in return make us more efficient and productive ?

 

[robert80]

I believe at some point near in the future, well have to stop thinking about comfort.I mean if we weren't to develop mobile phones, we would not miss them... We just got spoilt of technology...

 

[JaredJames]

I believe at some point near in the future, well have to stop thinking about comfort.I mean if we weren't to develop mobile phones, we would not miss them... We just got spoilt of technology...

Eventually we'll hit a barrier, but there's not reason to stop trying to develop things.

What you are saying sounds like a statement from a person who has no requirement for further development.

What if you were someone terminally ill? Would you like to think someones working on a cure or would you be happy knowing we've given up because we don't feel we should develop anymore? (Remember, the cure could be a piece of revolutionary technology, not just some medicine.)

Just because you don't want / need something, doesn't mean anyone else feels the same. I'd say that sort of thinking is rather selfish.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Agreed. Now, we have to start working on this population explosion. While I don't quite go along with China's enforcement policy, I am a firm believer in ZPG. Two kids per couple should be the maximum.

That's negative population growth, not ZPG.

 

[Jack21222]

I believe at some point near in the future, well have to stop thinking about comfort.I mean if we weren't to develop mobile phones, we would not miss them... We just got spoilt of technology...

And yet you're posting this through a computing device of some sort through the internet. Interesting...

 

[JaredJames]

And yet you're posting this through a computing device of some sort through the internet. Interesting...

Exactly, the OP is at a point where they are comfortable, or believes there is a point where they will no longer need advancements. Just because they don't, doesn't mean others will share that feeling.

The "time to stop" being pushed here is decided purely by the individual.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

I believe at some point near in the future, well have to stop thinking about comfort.I mean if we weren't to develop mobile phones, we would not miss them... We just got spoilt of technology...

So maybe we should all lower the heat a little. Like, try to adapt to 15degC instead of 21degC.

 

[VonDoom]

That's negative population growth, not ZPG.

How is that negative population growth? It looks like each 1 person has exactly 1 replacement.

 

[Galteeth]

What is an interesting point is the notion of adaptive happiness. I think one of the things the OP might be trying to address is the idea that oddly enough, many technologies which serve an obvious need or purpose do not necessarily lead to greater happiness per ce.

Cell phones and the internet are a decent enough example. While surely, these have increased happiness for some people (like the person who would've died if they didn't have their cell phone, or the dude who met his number one honey babe on the internet), and while these things have created changes and opportunities in society which have lead people to be happy as a result, it seems questionable whether total happiness or average happiness has in fact increased.

We only have to go back to the 1980's to find an age when cell phones and the internet were not in public use (mostly). You would expect that, since I have pointed out ways in which these things can and do increase happiness, average happiness and total happiness should have increased. Bu have they? I don't know, I was watching Sesame Street that decade! I was mostly pretty happy then I think.

So what's up with that? Do inconveniences and tragedies expand just as quickly?
Or is it something else?

Are we happier on the whole now then we were in the "dark ages"? I should hope so, but I don't really know for sure.

The amount of total human misery and suffering has certainly increased. But so has the total amount of pleasure and joy (as according to population growth.)

Maybe hunter gatherers were just as "happy" as modern day americans. (I am not suggesting that most americans would enjoy being hunter-gatherers. They would have quite a different perspective on the matter.)

At any rate, eventually "progress" or "technology" or what have you, will start to examine the fundamental roots of happiness/unhappiness and I figure at that point, people will start to be more happy.

 

[Vagn]

How is that negative population growth? It looks like each 1 person has exactly 1 replacement.

I'm guessing he was referring to China's one child policy, rather than a couple can have two children. Also not every person would have two children, they may only have one or none at all, which would lead to a very small negative growth.

 

[xxChrisxx]

My first responce to this was 'what utter bollocks'. Yet, Galteeths post has made me think, the OPs statement is rather complex if you start to think about it. What is happiness? How do you measure it with regards to never having had a piece of technology?

Even simple things like medicine can be analysed beyond the obvious. There is no doubt modern medicine has decreased the suffering of countless number of people around the world. Yet when you think about the UK, we have an aging population and it's becoming increasingly difficult to support the older people.

I suppose it's a case of you don't miss what you never had with regards to technology. I'd still rather have my comforts and being an engineer I hope technology carries on becuase it's fascinating.

 

[Jack21222]

How is that negative population growth? It looks like each 1 person has exactly 1 replacement.

1) Not every child will survive to adulthood.

2) Not every child will have children of their own. Some will choose not to. Some will be infertile. Some will be homosexual.

So, if there was a strict limit of 2, it's negative population growth because of 1) and 2). You can eliminate 2 by mandating an "average" of 2. Maybe people who have no kids can sell their "child license" to another couple so they can have more. That still doesn't eliminate 1) however, and you still get negative population growth.

 

[Newai]

I'm of the opinion that technology is nearly as natural as farming and hunting. With the facilities that this species came into the world with, it was an inevitable direction of our development.

War, disease, and famine will take care of that.

Folks a couple of generations back believed that same thing, and the world's population has doubled since then. I know that it's a cheery thought, but I don't believe it.

Then we need more wars. Everyone, write to your congressman or equivalent government warmonger!

 

[Newai]

1) Not every child will survive to adulthood.

They only have to survive long enough to copulate.

2) Not every child will have children of their own. Some will choose not to. Some will be infertile. Some will be homosexual.

This might not be enough to offset no. 1.

 

[JaredJames]

They only have to survive long enough to copulate.This might not be enough to offset no. 1.

If every couple - that's two people - have two children, you get no population growth, they simply replace each other.

However, not all of the children will survive and not all of them will have children and not all will have two children. So you end up with a negative population growth.

Your best case scenario with two per couple is zero growth. But that won't happen.

You could factor in people getting divorced and then re-marrying and having more children, but that again wouldn't be enough to offset the number of child deaths and people not having (enough) children. For every person who doesn't have a child you need another couple to replace that which means a lot of divorces.

 

[Evo]

If every couple - that's two people - have two children, you get no population growth, they simply replace each other.

However, not all of the children will survive and not all of them will have children and not all will have two children. So you end up with a negative population growth.

Your best case scenario with two per couple is zero growth. But that won't happen.

You could factor in people getting divorced and then re-marrying and having more children, but that again wouldn't be enough to offset the number of child deaths and people not having (enough) children. For every person who doesn't have a child you need another couple to replace that which means a lot of divorces.

There will still be multiple births, so many couples will have more than 2. Also, they're are people that will refuse to limit their offspring. There is the fertilzation clinic mess we are dealing with where women are popping out 6 at a time.

Zero population growth is something I support. I had two children because of the ZPG movement in the 70's stressing the importance of curbing the out of control overpopulation of the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_population_growth

 

[JaredJames]

We were discussing limiting couples to two children at a time. Assuming it was enforced and couples only had two children.

My responses are based on people only having a maximum of two children.

If this was the case, you would have negative population growth.

From your article:

A loosely defined goal of ZPG was to have a fertility rate of 2.11. Fertility rate is the average number of children a woman would be expected to have over the course of her life. The replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which the average women would have one daughter during her life: enough to replace herself. This replacement fertility will depend on mortality rates and the sex ratio at birth. It varies from around 2.1 in developed countries to over 3.0 in some developing countries.

As you can see, you need just above two children per couple to ensure ZPG or positive growth. Anything less and you get negative growth.

As you can't have 0.1 children, you are actually relying on some couples having more than two to maintain zero growth.

 

[Panwasbipolar]

Strange that the more convenience that's invented the faster the pace of life becomes to do more crap we lived without prior.

But I think that,

digging a root celler
chopping fire wood, seasoning and stacking it
rendering lard
digging a well
dealing with lice
cleaning a bed pan
digging a latrine and making sure it won't leak into your well
Taking time to find protein
checking crops
shaving a beard with a knife
making soap
preserving food
collecting herbs
heating water for a bath
watching newborns drop like flies and possibly a few wives after delivering them
Worrying about roving barbarians

would keep most from thinking about it in the first place, you'd just be focused on living through the day and getting the work done.

I'm a little sympathetic to the thought but (to me)it's not possible to go back once you grow used to modern inventions short of a disaster or joining the Amish. Yeah, Industry has dumbed down people a bit as far as self sufficiency but it's preferable to a few alternatives.
Maybe down the road it'll be a lesson or not. It's not something I'd like to live through, people act VERY different when they're on the verge of starvation. For the most part we're relatively civil to each other because living is comfortable now.

Or you could join the Roycrofters, the movement was started somewhat in reaction to uniformity of Industrialization. Odd thing about it was the consumerism that was becoming the norm because of industry was reliant on the same thing being money.

 

[mheslep]

There will still be multiple births, so many couples will have more than 2. Also, they're are people that will refuse to limit their offspring. There is the fertilzation clinic mess we are dealing with where women are popping out 6 at a time.

And on average apparently for each one of them and more there are six women having no children at all.

Zero population growth is something I support. I had two children because of the ZPG movement in the 70's stressing the importance of curbing the out of control overpopulation of the planet.

Yes so you've said Evo. Could you say why?

 

[JaredJames]

Yes so you've said Evo. Could you say why?

She does:

curbing the out of control overpopulation of the planet.

Something which I must say I agree with.

 

[mheslep]

She does:


Something which I must say I agree with.

This is not China or India. In the places Evo discusses - where modern fertility allows the odd sextuplet - population is not 'out of control.'

 

[JaredJames]

This is not China or India. In the places Evo discusses - where modern fertility allows the odd sextuplet - population is not 'out of control.'

Really, are you looking at the wider picture?

Britain, as per most 1st world countries are currently facing a problem of an ageing population which there simply isn't enough youngsters in work to support. Put simply, too many old people are living longer and so it's more of a strain on the countries.

This is a problem which requires population control, such as ZPG, in order to ensure that in the future you don't end up with an ageing population.

The populations of these countries may not be exploding as it is in developing countries, but it is out of control.

Either way our populations are growing and it won't be long before we can't support the numbers of people. Between child births and immigration, you end up with a rather nasty population increase.

 

[mheslep]

Really, are you looking at the wider picture?

Britain, as per most 1st world countries are currently facing a problem of an ageing population which there simply isn't enough youngsters in work to support. Put simply, too many old people are living longer and so it's more of a strain on the countries.

This is a problem which requires population control, such as ZPG, in order to ensure that in the future you don't end up with an ageing population.

Check the logic there. ZPG or NPG inevitably causes aging populations, not the other way around.

The populations of these countries may not be exploding as it is in developing countries, but it is out of control.

I was looking for some elaboration of the statement, not just a reassertion.

Either way our populations are growing and it won't be long before we can't support the numbers of people. Between child births and immigration, you end up with a rather nasty population increase.

What's nasty? http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=britain+population

 

[JaredJames]

Check the logic there. ZPG or NPG inevitably causes aging populations, not the other way around.

We already have an ageing population. We need to maintain ZPG in order to remove the problem of an ageing population. I'm not saying it would be immediate, but it would remove the problem.

 

[JaredJames]

I suggest you look at your data again, it is nasty.

Britains population has increased by 10 million over 50 years, which doesn't sound too bad, but when you factor in job availability and population ageing you get a not so nice picture. (Plus the fact Britain is hardly a large country in the first place.)

I recommend you check America's figures. In the same period, their population has gone from 180 million to 300 million. Do you no consider that nasty? Do you not consider that an explosion? It's nearly doubled in half a century.

 

[Evo]

World population mheslep, I never said ZPG was only for "some" countries.

Also, it's smart to keep your own country from becoming overpopulated.

 

[mheslep]

I suggest you look at your data again, it is nasty.

The data is, the data. My point was that negative characterization alone doesn't take us anywhere, it's simply an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion"

Britains population has increased by 10 million over 50 years, which doesn't sound too bad, but when you factor in job availability and population ageing you get a not so nice picture. (Plus the fact Britain is hardly a large country in the first place.)

Job availability is almost entirely due to social policy - another subject. One might take a population down from 60M to 60K and still have a job availability problem.

[...] In the same period, their population has gone from 180 million to 300 million. Do you no consider that nasty?

No? So? As it happens I credit those extra 120 m with a share of some extraordinarily accomplishments over that period, to the benefit of not just the US but all humankind.

Do you not consider that an explosion? It's nearly doubled in half a century.

Not unless the trend was for continued doubling in that time period. It no longer is in the US.

 

[mheslep]

World population mheslep, I never said ZPG was only for "some" countries.

Also, it's smart to keep your own country from becoming overpopulated.

Or under.

 

[Evo]

Or under.

That's so unlikely as not to be of concern. What was the population in the US when it was founded? Who's to say what underpopulated is? We can point to numbers when the population exceeds resources, but that's not for this thread.

Anyway, this has gotten way off topic. The population thread is in Social Sciences.

Back to technology or thread locked.

 

[JaredJames]

You keep going negative when I'm saying ZPG.

ZPG means that within a few decades we'd no longer have an ageing population.

I never said job availability was caused by the population. It is an issue with increasing population numbers though. The more people you have, the more jobs you need. Regardless of why the jobs aren't there, it increases the dependency on the state. Therefore you can't ignore that when discussing the topic of population.

 

[JaredJames]

Well ok, along the lines of the OP. At what point do we consider technology harmful to us? When do we start being affected mentally/physically by it and so it's doing more harm than good?

If anything, this would be the point at which we would need to start considering whether new technology - for the purpose of comfort - is truly required and whether it does more harm than good.

 

[CRGreathouse]

ZPG means that within a few decades we'd no longer have an ageing population.

ZPG would mean a much older population. If you're saying that ZPG would (eventually) mean that the population would stabilize at an age much older than the present average age, then I agree (subject to changes in technology and conditions). If you're saying that ZPG would lead to a younger population, then you're quite wrong.

In short: if your statement is that age'(t) = 0 in the long term under ZPG, I agree. If you're saying that age(t) under ZPG is less than age(t) under present conditions, you're wrong.

 

[Evo]

ZPG would mean a much older population. If you're saying that ZPG would (eventually) mean that the population would stabilize at an age much older than the present average age, then I agree (subject to changes in technology and conditions). If you're saying that ZPG would lead to a younger population, then you're quite wrong.

In short: if your statement is that age'(t) = 0 in the long term under ZPG, I agree. If you're saying that age(t) under ZPG is less than age(t) under present conditions, you're wrong.

Eventually it would stabilize. Possibly with a slightly larger younger population in the long run. As an older population might die off at a slightly higher rate than new births.

And this, as I said above, is off topic, discussions of population go in the population threads in Social sciences

 

[VonDoom]

1) Not every child will survive to adulthood.

2) Not every child will have children of their own. Some will choose not to. Some will be infertile. Some will be homosexual.

So, if there was a strict limit of 2, it's negative population growth because of 1) and 2). You can eliminate 2 by mandating an "average" of 2. Maybe people who have no kids can sell their "child license" to another couple so they can have more. That still doesn't eliminate 1) however, and you still get negative population growth.

So you're arguing on the grounds of an assumed technicality? I guess you would also say that ZPG is strictly impossible, because for it to exist, every newborn child from now to eternity would have to be born at the precise moment that another person died, and since events that appear to be simultaneous to one observer are not necessarily simultaneous to another, meaning that at at some point in time the population will increase or decrease by at least 1, meaning no ZPG. Would you also say that for ZPG to exist, that humanity must continue forever, outliving the sun, and indeed, the projected lifetime of the universe?

Or maybe just give us a break, and accept the idea for what it is ;)

 

[Jack21222]

So you're arguing on the grounds of an assumed technicality? I guess you would also say that ZPG is strictly impossible, because for it to exist, every newborn child from now to eternity would have to be born at the precise moment that another person died, and since events that appear to be simultaneous to one observer are not necessarily simultaneous to another, meaning that at at some point in time the population will increase or decrease by at least 1, meaning no ZPG. Would you also say that for ZPG to exist, that humanity must continue forever, outliving the sun, and indeed, the projected lifetime of the universe?

Or maybe just give us a break, and accept the idea for what it is ;)

No, I'm arguing that a strictly imposed limit of "maximum two kids per couple" leads to negative population growth. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[xxChrisxx]

No, I'm arguing that a strictly imposed limit of "maximum two kids per couple" leads to negative population growth. Don't put words in my mouth.

Surely that works if you are only considering one generation to the next. The premise of two children replaing two adults. If not everyone gets replaces there will be negative growth. Which I'm assuming is your line of thinking.

 

[russ_watters]

I never said job availability was caused by the population. It is an issue with increasing population numbers though. The more people you have, the more jobs you need. Regardless of why the jobs aren't there, it increases the dependency on the state. Therefore you can't ignore that when discussing the topic of population.

That's really bad logic. Yes, you need more jobs if you have more people, but having more people also creates more jobs, so you can't assume that with a population increase comes a job problem - in fact, the two are essentially unconnected. Looking at it another way, the US has seen vast increases in population (even immigrant population!) and yet until the current recession was still only running 5 or 6% unemployment.

We already have an ageing population. We need to maintain ZPG in order to remove the problem of an ageing population.

This is also bad logic. The "aging problem" exists because:

1. People are living longer.
2. Population growth is decreasing.

Wait, did I just say that lower population growth creates the "aging problem"? I did. It should be obvious: in order to keep the base of the pyramid wide, you need to have more kids. This is, of course, exactly the problem the West is having with their retirement programs: not enough younger workers to pay for the retirement of the retired workers because the retired are living longer and there are fewer of the younger workers.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Wait, did I just say that lower population growth creates the "aging problem"? I did. It should be obvious: in order to keep the base of the pyramid wide, you need to have more kids. This is, of course, exactly the problem the West is having with their retirement programs: not enough younger workers to pay for the retirement of the retired workers because the retired are living longer and there are fewer of the younger workers.

You then have the problem that it's completely unsustainable to have an ever increasingly large pyramid with a growth rate of only 1% per year the population will double in 1 persons lifetime. The only solution is to call in the Sandmen.

 

[JaredJames]

That's really bad logic. Yes, you need more jobs if you have more people, but having more people also creates more jobs, so you can't assume that with a population increase comes a job problem - in fact, the two are essentially unconnected. Looking at it another way, the US has seen vast increases in population (even immigrant population!) and yet until the current recession was still only running 5 or 6% unemployment.

It's not bad logic. People having kids doesn't magically create jobs. However, people generally have more kids when there is a strong economy (look at China now and the UK during the industrial revolution).
However, if you don't have jobs in the country and people keep having kids you end up with more people dependent on the state for support and not enough people paying for them.

This is also bad logic. The "aging problem" exists because:

1. People are living longer.
2. Population growth is decreasing.

Wait, did I just say that lower population growth creates the "aging problem"? I did. It should be obvious: in order to keep the base of the pyramid wide, you need to have more kids. This is, of course, exactly the problem the West is having with their retirement programs: not enough younger workers to pay for the retirement of the retired workers because the retired are living longer and there are fewer of the younger workers.

Again, I've never said what causes an ageing population. So I'm not sure why you're using that as a defence. I know exactly what caused our current situation. Thanks to my choice as geography as one of my subjects, I've spent six months studying demographics (not my favourite subjects, but done none the less).

As chris said, you can't have an ever increasing number of children for obvious reasons. So, the solution is to have ZPG. That way, once enough time passes you end up with the ageing population problem reduced and eventually removed. By only 'replacing' people you get more within the 16-65 age group able to work and paying into the state. I'm not saying it's an instant fix and it's obviously not a solution if the expected life expectancy continues to grow.
NPG doesn't work. It would create the ageing population problem. Which is why I didn't suggest it.

 

[xxChrisxx]

As chris said, you can't have an ever increasing number of children for obvious reasons. So, the solution is to have ZPG. That way, once enough time passes you end up with the ageing population problem reduced and eventually removed. By only 'replacing' people you get more within the 16-65 age group able to work and paying into the state. I'm not saying it's an instant fix and it's obviously not a solution if the expected life expectancy continues to grow.

Where do you stop this though? It's also fairly obvious that there will be zero growth at some point, when the resources reach a critical point. (assuming we don't all kill each other over what's left or discover how to get more resources from somewhere). Following on from that it's obvious that quality of life for everyone will be affected negatively as we each get a lesser slice of the resources available.

So is forced sero growth to preserve the quality of life better than allowing people the freedom to make their own choice which would lead to a natural zero growth anyway.