For you new people: Names

[Mundungu]

Geez guys, what where you smoking/drinking yeaterday ??

It must have been Philosophy day or something ....

Who ever accuse the "cards flipper" that we are to be ignorant gicks ... let them have a look at that.

BTW,
Only wrong can be proven.
Right is only theory.

I explain : most of the phisics as we know them are theories. They can only be proven wrong and are considered right until proven otherwise.

Mathematics are based on specific rules and can be proven right because are based on those rules. If only now we could be sure that those reflect the reallity. Until proven otherwise we will have to assume they are right.

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

Actually, I'm interested in continuing this.

Two words to Duel, Spiderman, Gizmo, etc.:

Prove it.

 

[DÛke]

...you are wrong bud.
Way wrong.
Go ahead, I dare YOU to find ANYTHING that says the humans use more than 25% of their inner mentality and brain. I dare YOU, badly!

There seems to be misunderstandings floating in the air here:
I'm not against science, and I do eat my food cooked-with technology, which fine. I do use the internet, and I do use technology, EVERYDAY!

You know, some of you pointed out that technology is helpful and unhelpful in many ways. Yes, that's right! You also said, that, we, humans, have the total control over the way tech is used? WRONG! We have no idea how tech is used. No idea. We are playing with fire, we are heating it up, and making it boil, boil, boil, filling us with spoils, and leaves us hungry for more.

I do use technology, but that doesn't mean I have forgotten about myself: my true self. My mind is cleared from all the pseudoscience out there. I know what's real and what's not.
And when I say that humans are able to accomplish more things with their mind and mentality, I mean it. Humans CAN accomplish more.

Just look at the past egyptions, bablyons, greeks...JUST LOOK and see. If that ancient library at cairo hasn't been burned many, many years ago, WHO KNOWS what we would be able to do? WHO knows what we have done?

The natural man used his brain power to survive.
No forks, spoons, internt, or anything. It was survival of the fittest. How did he survive? Well, sure he had those "extra" ogranisms, but, does it ever occur how it managed to survive, AND evolove into what we call the modern human being, which is US?
Does anyone ask that? Nope.

Technology is great, it, in a way, prooves that we are curious and that we live for knowledge, BUT, we, humans, have no idea on how to control our erges. We will turn this Earth into a spolied little sphere with nothing but tragedy and disaster.

Humans are the source of distruction, but this is not ture for all of us. Those of us who are able to control their mind, and not let it glide with the falls theories and psuedosciences. We can hold back our thoughts, we can protect our minds from the filth and drugs that the some of the science is teaching us.

We must learn, and ACCEPT that we don't KNOW everything, and we ARE NOT the greatest things ever! We must accept the fact that there are A LOT of stuff, right here on Earth that we haven't discovered yet.

The brain uses 20-23 or so percent and I will not aruge about that unless I see it for myself. What is the other 80 or percent doing? What is it, and what does it control? Do you know what it controls? Does anyone know what it controls? Do you even DARE and assume the fact that it just might be something out of this world?
Could it be that humans are more than we know? Yes.

If we keep doing what we are doing, we will never get anywhere.
Soon, we will trip over something, and we will turn back in time, back into the Dark Ages, back in civilization.

Nothing will happen until the humans realize themselves.
Nothing will happen, and no technology will proove, that we, humans are greater than we are: what will proove it is each human THEMselves! Unfortunatly, this is not going to happen in the near future.

"Come out from the deep hole, from that false role. Come out here, and join me, and see what I have been talking about..."

 

[Almindhra]

http://www.newscientist.com/lastword/answers/lwa607body.html

 

[Duel]

Prove that science has aided society? okay.

1: Sociological. the greatest advancesin sociological science have been either governmental of communicative.

Radio allowed messages to get from one side of the country to the other. you can now talk to your relatives.

You don't have to walk the 34 miles to school. Remember, were it not for rapid transport, there would need to be over twice as many of any given type of building, just to be moderately accessibel, and you wouldn't be able to see your uncle without a month total travel time.

Govenrment has also benifited. The movement from facist or despotic government to democratic republics, and more effective control measure. More and better police, which is, in general, a good thing. police serve as much a detterent as a punisher to criminals.

Also, elections would not be possible without a way to communicate rapidly. they were when there were 13 total states, all together. Not with 50.

Also, now people who habve similar intrests can share thoughts, promoting empathy. you can find people who agree with you, or find information on why they don't. This is a good thing(TM).

Also, population CONTROL has some huge leaps. We can now avoid having children. And whether or not you believe this is moral (I do, you don't need to), the earth would be MUCH more crowded without this.

2: Personal
Just the advances in medical sciences alone would have been worth it. From the pain and suffering that modern painkiller have eliminated, to the millions of lives saved each year thruogh transplants, surgery, chemotherapy, and a hundred other methods. In one year, more people are saved than have EVER died to the atom bomb.

Comfort level has gone WAAAY up. The average welfare family now has more metal in their house than the average merchant in medieval times. And percentagewise, actually, starvation has gone down, though not as much as it should have. But that's people being greedy, not lack of science. We have STUFF. Magic cards, for instance.

Expression and education are both better and freer now. We have more people thinking more things, and saying more things that ever. you may think this is bad, but anything else means that if ever someone in power doesn't like you, you're screwed. (see the trial of Bertrand Russell against the state of New York)

***********************************************************

Cateran: try walking under a tree in winter. Without a blanket. Or clothes. Or shoes. Try reading a handwritten book. They'd be hard to find.

Duke:I KNOW that I don't know everything. So did socrates. The word Philosopher, though, means lover of knowledge. And I love knowledge and trying to learn. If you don't, that's fine. Don't learn. Your choice, man. Just one question, if humanity and technology and knowledge are so evil, why are you using a computer? Why are you even writing?

***********************************************************

"Someone once said people use 21-30 pecent of their brain. I figure that's a population average. 20% of people use 98% of their brain, and the rest just insist the world would be better if nobody used any at all...."

That statistic was taken from dissection of the brains of reptiles, BTW. they still function without 80% of their brain. This is because of how the brain stores data. It doesn't store a piece here and a piece there. It stores as much as it canin every spot, like a holographic picture. You can cut holographic film any way you want, but until you gets tiny, like less than a strand, it still displays the whole picture.
Scans of electronic activity in the brain show electricity flowing through EVERYWHERE.

[Edited by Duel on September 19th, 2000 at 02:09 AM]

 

[DÛke]

How is that in Spiderman's defense? It actully proves that we use 20, OR LESS of our brains...

Duel, I beg you to listen this time, because you've ignored me the other times. Did I say I was against science? No, I said I was against it TO SOME EXTENTS. Never have I said I was against Technology, I'm actually with it, BUT, the fact that the people ONLY use 20 OR LESS of their brain makes it hard to imagen how THEY WILL MANAGE to control the many, many, many, many technological developements.

HUMANS can only comprehend so much. We will need a greater brain in order to advance, and, we DO HAVE the greater brain, but we don't realize it BECAUSE WE RELY ON COMPUTERS.

NOW, I'm not talking about daily life here. I'm not talking about now, as I'm typing this. What I'm talking about is centuries of advancements from now...WHAT WILL HAPPEN? You think technology will keep on developing in away that it will only BENEFIT THE HUMANS? ARE YOU SURE?

I like technology, I like some of the sciences and what it has done.
Don't post after me and tell me why I SHOULD LIKE THIS STUFF BECAUSE I ALREADY DO, BUT what I don't like is the HUMAN BRAIN ITSELF, the brain, that is. The brain that is left to rot. The hidden brain. The unused, or "SPARE" 80 or so percent! THAT'S, what I don't like: how technology corrupted the humans OVER TIME(NOT instantly), corrupted them to an extent that THEY THEMSELVES can't realize how great of being they are.

HUMANS are missing out on a lot of stuff dude. A LOT OF STUFF.
Sure, we're developing lap tops, laser eye surgeries, X-rays, cars, medicine, and everything else, but we are FORGETTING ONE LITTLE THING I CALL: US.

Go ahead, build and make, invent and nourish whatever you have, but you will NOT, and science can NOT explain everything in away that we could understand it. SOMETIMES, Duel, we must rely on our BASIC INSTINCTS (which are hard to find in many people these days) to cross the border, to cross the line. We must be DEPENDENT once in a while. WITHOUT OUR basic instincts, we wouldn't have been here in the first place. Those instincts were lost to technology, replacying a human sense with a human robotnic, mechanical, dependent little earthling.

AGAIN, don't post telling me what I should like, because what you're telling me is what I already know, and, what I already like.

And Duel, I may sound like I'm mad, or flaming, but I'm not, philosphy has a harsh way of communicating, sorry.

"Just think about it...You'll get it..."

 

[Spiderman]

... kinda useless...

Thallid ICM: Umm... I forgot. Prove what again?

DUke: boy oh boy...

...you are wrong bud.
Way wrong.
Go ahead, I dare YOU to find ANYTHING that says the humans use more than 25% of their inner mentality and brain. I dare YOU, badly!

Well, Almindhra showed you one link (Thanks!) Here's another (BTW, I LOVE this site for urban legends):

http://www.snopes.com/spoons/fracture/10percnt.htm

"you are wrong bud.
Way wrong.
Go ahead, I dare YOU to find ANYTHING that says humans DON'T use more than 25% of their inner mentality and brain. I dare YOU, badly"

See how easy that was? I've got links, show me yours. Until then, like one of the people in Almindhra's link said, you're basically pulling your "fact" out of thin air.

Just look at the past egyptions, bablyons, greeks...JUST LOOK and see. If that ancient library at cairo hasn't been burned many, many years ago, WHO KNOWS what we would be able to do? WHO knows what we have done?

Yeah, I'm looking. As far as I know they haven't traveled to the moon either....

The natural man used his brain power to survive.
No forks, spoons, internt, or anything. It was survival of the fittest. How did he survive? Well, sure he had those "extra" ogranisms, but, does it ever occur how it managed to survive, AND evolove into what we call the modern human being, which is US?
Does anyone ask that? Nope.

Quite frankly, it was a combination of luck and the very thing you're railing about, the ability to learn and use science and technology. The ability to kill something with a pointed stick was VASTLY better than using your bare hands. From going to better forms of protection meant a higher birth rate and population. From that led to the shift from hunting to gathering. Also led to a longer lifespan which allowed humans to HAVE the time to think and ponder rather than just hunt and eat. It was the inquisitiveness, not some "extra" powers that enabled humans to do this.

Technology is great, it, in a way, prooves that we are curious and that we live for knowledge, BUT, we, humans, have no idea on how to control our erges. We will turn this Earth into a spolied little sphere with nothing but tragedy and disaster.

Hey, I agree with this to a point. We ARE ravaging the earth and destroying the environment. HOWEVER, we're also learning about the nature balance and in some places TRYING to right it.

We must learn, and ACCEPT that we don't KNOW everything, and we ARE NOT the greatest things ever! We must accept the fact that there are A LOT of stuff, right here on Earth that we haven't discovered yet.

Hey, I totally agree with this too.

The brain uses 20-23 or so percent and I will not aruge about that unless I see it for myself. What is the other 80 or percent doing? What is it, and what does it control? Do you know what it controls? Does anyone know what it controls? Do you even DARE and assume the fact that it just might be something out of this world?
Could it be that humans are more than we know? Yes.

Again, as the articles state, you're using the logical fallacy that since we can't explain what all the brain is doing, it must be doing SOMETHING "special". Sorry... and the articles do a MUCH better job of refuting it.

"Don't post what YOU like and KNOW"? So very arrogant... <sigh> Again, I could say the same thing, however irresponsible and pompous it sounds It sounds like your mind is made up and no one's going to convince you otherwise. Hey, that's fine. But a closed mind doesn't sound like learning to me and almost contradicts what you're saying (at least from what it sounds like).

 

[Gizmo]

I agree, it`s our responsibility to listen to the other side of the argument. Duke`s position seems to be self-supporting, as it`s a denial of the existence of another paradigm as it denies the existence of evidence. He is talking about views that exist on a totally different level to our own. We consider ourselves to be what we see ourselves as, he does not. It`s two viewpoints that cannot hope to be reconciled.

In defense of science, it`s simply a tool.
"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
Science doesn`t kill people, people kill people.

Duke said:
"The natural man used his brain power to survive.
No forks, spoons, internt, or anything. It was survival of the fittest. How did he survive? Well, sure he had those "extra" ogranisms, but, does it ever occur how it managed to survive, AND evolove into what we call the modern human being, which is US?
Does anyone ask that? Nope."

I think that the question of humanity`s physical evolution has long since been asked and answered. The question of development of a sentience is less easily answered, as nobody is even aware how far down the food chain sentience runs - there are arguments that Fish are self-aware, for instance. Are Dolphins self-aware? They seem to be able to communicate, but it is a language? How do you define sentience in an animal that cannot say "I think, therefore I am"?

Actually, that makes me think - at what point in humanity`s past were we these super-intelligent beings that you claim we have forgotten how to be? When we were apes in trees? Were we scavenging for food on the ground? Was it in our early tool-bearing days such as the beginning of 2001? The Stone Age? Was it in the brutal empire-building periods of the Bronze age and beyond? Was it last week, and we blinked and missed it?
The devolution of mankind, as you describe it, has no evidence to support it. You might as well believe that we are made entirely of jam and live in space. It`s possible (unlikely, but possible) but irrelevent even if it is true.

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

I think there is another problem with this discussion. "Technology" is too broad a term to be discussed in general.

Duel: I disagree with most of what you said in this way:

1: Sociological. the greatest advances in sociological science have been either governmental or communicative.

Communicative technology and technology used for survival are the only types of technology which I have no major problems with. Of course, communicative technology is only necessary because we chose to use our technology to expand our borders needlesly. If it weren't for the fact that we thought it was there and were unevolved enough to feel the need to take it, we wouldn't have gone out over the oceans of the world to take enough land that we would think of 34 miles as a necessary distance to travel frequently. Once we had developed the technology that allowed us to take foreign lands for our own, the technology that allowed us to travel back and forth in that land was thought of as necessary, of course, as well as methods of communication. However, the end result is that it is no harder to communicate with people than it would have been if our species had stayed only in small communities, except that now, we have wasted a huge amount of natural resources, so we end up being the losers, as well as every other species on this planet.

More effective control measure? The only reason policement need the technology of guns is because burgulars use guns too, so in this sense, technology didn't help at all, except that more people get killed.

Elections are merely a staple of the political system of a democracy. A democracy is not the only political system that can exist successfully. I don't want to discuss this in-depth here; it's too broad a topic.

It doesn't matter whether people agree or not on anything, they can still intelligently discuss it, and often, finding out an opposing point of view is better than iscussing it with just someone who agrees with you.

If there wasn't so much technology, poplutaion control wouldn't be necessary, regardless of whether it's ethical or not. I personally think population control is only ethical if it is necessary, and in this day and age, it often is, but if it weren't for all this technology, it might not be. I don't think we need to discuss this further here either.

2: Personal
Most of the advances of medical sciences have been made at the cost of other lifeforms. While I am not against most medical technology (plastic surgery is an exception), this sacrifice of lives might not have been necessary if we had just accepted that

STUFF, as you call material possessions, is unnecessary, and in fact, sometimes creates a problem because people take survival for granted, and want more things, which don't fulfill hapiness at all, and also slowly destroy our environment. Every piece of "stuff" is something made based on someone's expression of something, and it would be much easier and more efficient and effective to just tell people yourself.

I use Magic merely as a way to express myself and see other people's expressions of themselves. It isn't the cards that are important, it is the strategy and philosophy.

Free speech and technology are not necessarily related, except that people often use computers and paper to express their thoughts. The problem with doing all of this on computers has already been discussed, but even writing something down on paper creates problems. In what some people refer to as the first millennium C.E. (Common Era, the equivalent of Anno Dominae -in the year of our lord), large numbers of raiders burned down and pillaged almost all of the public libraries in the world. Had it not been for about 500-1000 or so monks who kept copies of all of these books, the knowledge of several thousand years would have been lost forever. The only truly effective way to pass down knowledge is orally, which is the way it was done for thousands of years before the frail technology of paper was invented.

Education is not necessarily better, because while ideas are discussed that we might not know about if not for technology, we need education less and less, so people pay less attention to it. This creates some serious problems, such as when people make mistakes they wouldn't have made if they had learned history more effectively. Even if the human race collectively knows more, individual people often care less about what they are learning. The point of education is not to learn facts, but to learn how to be an effective and productive member of society. Since many people are ignoring the applications of what they have learned, the extra education that fluttered briefly through their heads doesn't make an impact at all.

Obviously, if we humans just lived in places without cold winters, i.e. where we evolved physically, we wouldn't have this problem. I'm not saying everyone should move to near the Equator, because that won't happen. What I mean is that it was only our strange desire to own that made it so that we know what a cold winter is by allowing us the technology to go other places.

I seriously am insulted that you can feel that we are the ones who don't wish to learn. We (people who think/thought like Duke and I) have learned that reliance on technology is unnecessary and not a Good Idea (Tm). You (people who think/thought like Duel, Spiderman, and Gizmo), on the other hand, have spent years calculating how to find the determinant(s) of matrices and other barely significant facts about what you perceive to be the world. If anything, we are the people who wish to learn from the psat mistakes of most technology, not you.


Spiderman: So what if they didn't go to the moon? That doesn't impact our daily lives at all, except thinking "Ooh, we have been to the moon." That doesn't affect anyone's personal quest to discover themselves (i.e. LIFE), except of course, the people who went there, and all that did was make them more famous among confused people who believe that going to the moon is necessary.


Also, I think we should start a new thread in the Off Topic forum to continue this discussion, so that new members won't come here to look for names, and to avoid untasteful replies like Multani's previous comment.

*********************************************************************
Why does it matter how much of one's brain one uses? That is a completely different argument.

 

[sageridder]

As far as percentage used goes.what i have been lead to belive is not that we use a small percentage per se.It does perform tasks,but in fact we use a small percentage of the full potential of our brains.Or maybe better said of our minds full poetential.Just my personal take on it.

 

[Duel]

"most of the advances to medical science have come at the cost of other lifeforms"
No.

Penicillin, never hurt the mold to make it.
Morphine, codeine, hell, any painkiller is either naturally secreted or synthetic, not taken from corpses.
Some surgeries were tested on animals, but if you would rather test them on humans, we have nothing more to discuss.

Commmunication: We do communicate much better with Mail, and with internet then we did with the pony express or wells fargo wagon. I don't see how you can say we don't.

When the raiders burned down the libraries, the monks kept books. Not stories, not oral traditions. books. Technology. Writing, ink, paper. Since the invention of the printing press and radio, the rate at which our technology has progressed has gotten faster and faster, exponentially so. (Read "Future Shock")

When I said more effective police forces, I didn't mean weapons, I mean ways of getting to your house BEFORE it was completely burned down, or stopping people from going a a serial killing spree. Not weapons, methods. See?

I don't see how you can say that without technology, we wouldn't need population control. Do you mean more people would have died? If so, you're right. You support that as the way to do it?

We do NOT need education less and less, as you said. We need it more and more. the education that somone without a high school dimploma has now is amazing compared to some of the aristocrats in the pre-rennaisance.

And I don't see how you think that what we learn is unimporant or irrelevant. Sure, not all fields of knowledge are directly applicable, but most are. I just use trigonometry to figure out how much space we have in our garage, before we moved extra stuff there. That was helpful. I'd rather know too much than too little, too much means, at worst, you're slow to decide. Too little means you can decide incorrectly.

Also, because we can live nearly everywhere, we have more room to spread out/.

And the brain quote (both Duke's and mine)was not correct. It is a myth. I took it out of context in my last reply, and apologize for that, that was petty of me.

 

[Thrash Golem]

OAkay..


What's the point of this? wouldn't the world be better if we spent the money on ice cream instead of science we'll never use?


So all we really need science to do is clone gandhi a few hundred times to take over the ukraine..

then its ice cream for all!!

 

[Multani]

I didn't understand your post about me being mad.
My real name is John. Multani and John are one and the same.

 

[Spiderman]

think there is another problem with this discussion. "Technology" is too broad a term to be discussed in general.

Too true.

Elections are merely a staple of the political system of a democracy. A democracy is not the only political system that can exist successfully. I don't want to discuss this in-depth here; it's too broad a topic.

Agreed, however, I dare to postulate that it is the MOST successful.

It doesn't matter whether people agree or not on anything, they can still intelligently discuss it, and often, finding out an opposing point of view is better than iscussing it with just someone who agrees with you.

Agreed here too; however, it sounded to me like DUke was "shutting" out any further discussion.

If there wasn't so much technology, poplutaion control wouldn't be necessary, regardless of whether it's ethical or not. I personally think population control is only ethical if it is necessary, and in this day and age, it often is, but if it weren't for all this technology, it might not be. I don't think we need to discuss this further here either.

This is kinda funny; above you said it's good to discuss things yet here you're saying we don't need to discuss this further.

I have to agree with Duel about this; what are you saying? That diseases are mankind's natural population control? You can debate this for a while too; what if mankind developed/mutated/evolved a natural resistance to them? As you said, "technology" is a broad statement so I'm only assuming you mean advances in medicine here but to blame technology for the need for population control seems to me to be a blatant, blanket, irresponsible statement (at least when you haven't clarified it yet )

2: Personal
Most of the advances of medical sciences have been made at the cost of other lifeforms. While I am not against most medical technology (plastic surgery is an exception), this sacrifice of lives might not have been necessary if we had just accepted that

More clarification needed here.

The only truly effective way to pass down knowledge is orally, which is the way it was done for thousands of years before the frail technology of paper was invented.

Totally disagree with this. Leaving history to word-of-mouth leaves the chance it will be mis-remembered, distorted, mixed with opinion, or forgotten. Paper (or the equivalent) is "permanent" (compared to the mind). If writing had existed, we might have known more exactly about what happened when the Black Sea was flooded 7500 BCE, instead of having tantalizing memories of legends of some "great flood" in the past. Because writing existed, today we know somewhat about the daily life of ancient Egyptians and what they shopped for and were taxed on (records found in some pyramid tomb).

Education is not necessarily better, because while ideas are discussed that we might not know about if not for technology, we need education less and less, so people pay less attention to it. This creates some serious problems, such as when people make mistakes they wouldn't have made if they had learned history more effectively. Even if the human race collectively knows more, individual people often care less about what they are learning. The point of education is not to learn facts, but to learn how to be an effective and productive member of society. Since many people are ignoring the applications of what they have learned, the extra education that fluttered briefly through their heads doesn't make an impact at all.

Totally disagree with most of this too. Education is SO much better; with an educated mind you can erase most of todays bigotry and racism (because you know a person is a person, no matter what their race or skin color). Indivudual people care less about what they're learning? Where did you pull that from? I believe the opposite; people WANT to learn, and if they don't, they're pretty much lazy (what a blanket statement of my own )

I seriously am insulted that you can feel that we are the ones who don't wish to learn. We (people who think/thought like Duke and I) have learned that reliance on technology is unnecessary and not a Good Idea (Tm). You (people who think/thought like Duel, Spiderman, and Gizmo), on the other hand, have spent years calculating how to find the determinant(s) of matrices and other barely significant facts about what you perceive to be the world. If anything, we are the people who wish to learn from the psat mistakes of most technology, not you.

This may have been directed to Duel but since I'm mentioned AND have mentioned this...

I have no idea how old you are (see! If you mentioned it in one of those age threads I've forgotten it already... what a reliable thing the memory is ) but I know DUke is 17 (or so he says). Someone barely the fourth of the national age average has "learned" reliance on technology is unnecessary? I have to scoff (hopefully good-naturedly). I'm 28 and I KNOW I don't know whether reliance on technology is necessary OR unnecessary. Frankly, the way you're describing it, I think it IS necessary. On the other hand, you probably think I'm a dumb web-head for not figuring out sooner what you guys know . But again, this merely demonstrates that it appears you have already closed your minds.

I'm sorry you think I calculate matrices in my spare (!) time. I don't think I ever mentioned doing THAT particular activity and I have to agree, calcalating matrices are NOT my cup of tea. But in turn, I see you and DUke railing against the progress of technology yet not suiting action to words. There are PLENTY of places in the world that are still in the "Dark Ages", Australia comes to mind but I'm sure there are many. Many places in Africa are illiterate and rely on the oral history you espouse. It would be truly interesting to see you guys move to such an environment. In fact, except for the mandatory education in the US (which I don't think is a bad thing either), you could probably do a lot here. Let diseases run their natural course. Forgo the "evils" that you advocate.

Spiderman: So what if they didn't go to the moon? That doesn't impact our daily lives at all, except thinking "Ooh, we have been to the moon." That doesn't affect anyone's personal quest to discover themselves (i.e. LIFE), except of course, the people who went there, and all that did was make them more famous among confused people who believe that going to the moon is necessary.

I mentioned this example since DUke failed to mention any accomplishments the "ancient Babylonians, Egyptians" and whoever else did. And frankly, it DID impact daily life because there were plenty of technological advances made in the course of going to the moon that have been applied to everyday products. And in the future, it may open up more real estate to alleviate that population overcrowding problem that you've mentioned.

Thrash Golem: Some of stuff is interesting to the parties involved. If you have no wish in scrolling down and reading the discussion, feel free not to click on the thread

 

[Almindhra]

You can't argue with a stupid person...

 

[Spiderman]

that could refer to SO many people here (including myself)... care to be more specific?

 

[Apollo]

Well, I feel like getting involved now. So much to adress...

The "percent of the mind" thing: first of all, even if we do only use 20% of our brain (which is in doubt), why does technology cause that? This statistic was taken from lizards; they don't have technology, so it's obviously not technology that causes us to use so little. And (again, this depends on that even being true) what is your method going to do? Have you made any progress towards using your whole brain? Maybe we'll make a scientific advance allowing us to use the whole brain. But if you're not using science to free up that 80%, how are you going to do it? Do you have a better idea?

The "information passed orally" thing: HAH! You can't seriously think this is the best way to pass on information. Sure, books are fragile, but they're mass-produced; if the information is spread all over the world, any disaster that would destroy all those books would also kill any humans that know that information. Plus, word-of-mouth is seriously flawed. Have you ever played the game "telephone"? You go in a 6 person circle and one sentence is hopelessly distorted. Imagine what it's like going over 30 generations!

Who says we can't realize ourselves if we use a lot of technology? I can't use a flashlight at night and still be myself? What the heck is that? How does technology keep us for realizing ourselves?

As for following our basic instincts, the most basic instincts are surviving and reproducing. And science saves tons of lives, and reproducing goes on quite a bit, judging from the fact that the population keeps on growing.

We must learn, and ACCEPT that we don't KNOW everything, and we ARE NOT the greatest things ever! We must accept the fact that there are A LOT of stuff, right here on Earth that we haven't discovered yet.

Duh. Of course we don't know everything, and of course we aren't the greatest, and of course we haven't discovered everything. Science tries to learn more, and tries to discover those things. What the heck did you think this would prove?

How did ancient man survive? "With his brain power," you say. Yup. He created new technology, made pointy sticks that let him kill enough creatures to survive. Discovering how to cultivate crops was a huge development that let humans settle in one place and evolve into what we are today.

Just look at the past egyptions, bablyons, greeks...JUST LOOK and see. If that ancient library at cairo hasn't been burned many, many years ago, WHO KNOWS what we would be able to do? WHO knows what we have done?

They couldn't do anything we can't do now. You think if we could read those books, we'd learn telepathy? I don't think so. Nothing we know from either of those two civilizations suggests they could do anything special we can't. And if they could, don't you think Thallid's precious word of mouth system would have brought that information to us?

You say that we need a greater brain to advance and survive, but you also say that if we keep advancing, technology would destroy us. Well, do you want to advance or not? Other than evolving, the only way to advance our people is with science of some kind, and the only way to control evolution is with science. So if you want us to advance, it needs to be with science.

If there wasn't so much technology, poplutaion control wouldn't be necessary, regardless of whether it's ethical or not.

Um, you're absolutely right. Tons of people would die, and we wouldn't need population control. Do you really want people to die? I bet you know and love someone who wouldn't be alive were it not for the medical advances you seem not to want. Perhaps even you.

Communicative technology and technology used for survival are the only types of technology which I have no major problems with.

Do you have a toilet in your home? Would you prefer to walk around and smell feces wherever you go? Do you have an oven? Microwave? Washer and dryer?

ThrashGolem: I actually find this very interesting. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Maybe I'll tell my science teacher about it

 

[Multani]

I think this entire debate is a lemon.
It's polluting this thread. Guys if you want to argue about this, start a new thread, or do it over PM.
The reason why this is a lemon:
None of the sides are willing to compromise. Each side is firmly rooted in their theory. No one will back down. It's like Chinese people and American people debating which country is better. There will be no end to this debate. At some point, it will become personal and people will start to harbor bitter feelings. No matter how much proof Duel and Spidy show that disproves DUke's opinion, if DUke blindly believes his opinion, DUke will always deject the evidence, stating that it's inconclusive or flat out not true. This debate is pointless, unless both sides are willing to compromise. In a debate, it takes more courage to admit your views were not ENTIRELY correct than it does to hold on to a perhaps biased or partial point of view.
I could share my opinion in this as well, but it would accomplish nothing. I can not force you to stop this pointless debate, but I will ask you to take it elsewhere, and I have already shown you why this is pointless.

 

[DÛke]

...we seem to have a lot of points; different, but a lot of points .

Can we make this shorter, and smarter?
Let's take each fact and/or fiction and see what we come up with.

You decide, is it fact or fiction:

1. Humans are more intelligent than they think.
-I think this is a fact because humans do posses undiscovered talents. I think that what's covering this talent(s) is the technology, since we over use it, which is ok, since it's our nature.

2. Technology caused human to think less in some catagories:
-I think this is a fact. Humans depdend on technology too much now a days.

3. Technology is the key to success.
-Fact. Yes, if it isn't, we wouldn't be here, at the CPA, discussing this over the net. Heck, we might not be a live.

4. Technology, also, is the key to disaster.
-Fact. Yes, as we develop, there's no telling as to what might happen. It could be good, it could be bad, but, since nothing could be classified as completely "perfect", we can't call
technology "perfect". One wrong step, and it will all get out of hand. If abused, technology is the master of all disasters.

5. Humans are not the perfect species.
-Fact. Unless, that is, we're egocentric.

Is there anymore statements we should talk about?
That was totally my point of view. Let's see what we have in common vs what we disagree with.

I think what we disagree on Spiderman/Duel, is not the issues itself, but what we think about the deeper issues the major issues contain.

Since it sounds like we are all shouting and yelling at each other, I just want to know, right now, what everyone is feeling like? You guys alright? I hope it's all cool.

 

[Apollo]

4. Technology, also, is the key to disaster.
-Fact.

This is one I kinda have a problem with. Anything could lead to disaster. If we screw up royally, technology could kill us all. But it could also save us all. Imagine a giant asteroid comes, like the one that may have killed the dinosaurs. If we have the right technology, it could save us. But if we didn't attempt to develop new technology because we were afraid of us, we'd all die.

You can't say that this is the key to disaster, because anything, if mismanaged, can lead to disaster. I think if humanity goes along, constantly second-guessing itself, we'll never get anywhere. You can't accomplish anything without some risk.

2. Technology caused human to think less in some catagories:
-I think this is a fact. Humans depdend on technology too much now a days.

I think we are dependent somewhat on technology, but not too much, and it doesn't cause us to think less. If machines can take care of menial tasks, like cooking our food or washing our clothes, we have more time to think about more important things. If I can research an english project while the washing machine is washing my clothes, I am accomplishing more because of technology. Rather, I believe we think more because of technology because our lives our not tied up with small tasks.

Apollo