Humanity Does Not Require Further Technological Advancement
For the Motion
Side Score: 11
|
 |
Against the Motion
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Humanity may as well go back to the stone ages at this point, we are just 200-300 years away from a type one civilization technologically but the average person is barely even type 0 psychologically and intellectually. At this rate we will only put ourselves in more danger and the technology will mostly be used for profit and militaristic endeavors and serve to make the masses more lazy and the power structures more dangerous. Humanity is not worthy of anything but extinction unless we make some serious changes socially and culturally and systemic intervention takes place to pull the human race's head out of it's collective ass hole of stupidity and evil. The masses out of their stupidity, have accepted the world of Rockefeller and Rothschild rather than fighting for the world of Tesla and Fresco. It is the vast stupidity that is to blame, throughout human history the masses have allowed tyranny to take root over and over again, they simply accept the world as it is and assume that the institutions and social constructs that shape their life are necessary, failing to understand the concept of self governance and how to be both independent and interdependent at the same time. It is for this reason that I blame the stupidity of the masses, more than the tyrants they put in power and the deceivers they believe in and the profit driven ecological and cultural wrecking balls that the masses fund. It is STUPIDITY above all things, that is to blame, without such insurmountable stupidity, we would be using the technology we already have in a very different way, nevermind what we will invent in the future. Side: For the Motion
@DarthSidious Humanity may as well go back to the stone ages at this point, we are just 200-300 years away from a type one civilization technologically but the average person is barely even type 0 psychologically and intellectually. At this rate we will only put ourselves in more danger and the technology will mostly be used for profit and militaristic endeavors and serve to makes the masses more lazy and the power structures more dangerous. These are very good points DarthSidious. In fact, it is in large part the motivation behind a debate on this topic. That is, should we put such Technology in the hands of a population that has demonstrated themselves time and time again not to be nearly ready to handle it? Is there not extreme predictive power indicating that such Tech. would be misused/abused? Do we not consider this same line of reasoning while raising children, for instance? That is, do you put potentially dangerous materials/ect. in the hands/range of children who clearly are not presently equipped to handle it? For example, an argument could be made for demanding the basic standards of human education/intelligence/logical reasoning/control over their emotions/cooperativeness/ect. ect. be raised to meet our current level of Tech. advancement before proceeding forward with new Tech. Otherwise, the gap between those reasonably displaying the aforementioned qualities and the bulk of the population (who do not display these qualities to any significant level) is becoming ever larger. Note: Many other distinct noteworthy arguments could be made on a similar front Side: For the Motion
Oh but it does the Wacked Out Progressives need to try and figure out how to make plastic out of wind and solar power. The best question for the dummies that they are is how is wind and solar power going to drive the TOT (Turbine Output Temperature) on the airplanes they love to fly but steadily complain about adding to whatever it is as of today could be Global Warming or Global Cooling who knows and who cares. Side: For the Motion
Technological Advancement is benefit to humanity . Whole technological advancement is constantly evolving right now . today we can get information what we search on the internet to find out accurate answer . Other hand Korean venture company try growing fruits and vegetable by artificial light in the former tunnel . We might be think craze about what company doing . Technology require our life to grow benefit and income that earned new Technology , because We roughly considered earning technology is good to get job but difficult to get job. If venture company success we expect new field open . Side: For the Motion
|
1
point
You certainly require further technological advancement, you pseudo-intellectual halfwit. You should start by reading books. And when I say read them, I mean you should learn to understand what they say. Let's consider the ramifications of your latest philosophical buffoonery, shall we? Fundamental to your bizarre claim, humanity does not require:- A) To cure cancer/aids/alzheimer's etc... B) To develop interstellar travel and colonise other worlds. C) AI and/or quantum computing. D) Extended life expectancy. E) Safe, renewable energy. F) Cybernetic technology and/or nanotechnology (enhancing knowledge, physical abilities, fighting diseases etc...) Patently, humanity requires all of these things in order to reach the future stages of its development. If you intend to reply with the rather boring appeal to semantics that becoming more advanced is not "required" (i.e. not necessary) then it was never required. Not now and not when we were living in caves. We do it not because it is mandatory, but because it is beneficial to our own survival, comfort and prosperity. Side: Against the Motion
@Nomenclature You certainly require further technological advancement, you pseudo-intellectual halfwit. You should start by reading books. And when I say read them, I mean you should learn to understand what they say. Let's consider the ramifications of your latest philosophical buffoonery, shall we? Fundamental to your bizarre claim, humanity does not require:- Do you understand that forming debates around an unambiguous motion is standard procedure in many formal debates? Also, this is a legitimate question in many rights, as the consequences of increased Tech. "raise the stakes" both good and bad. Consider the Tech. involved in Kurzweil's Singularity, or creating a Superintelligence (such as in Nick Bostroms book), ect. ect. Just because we may be capable of achieving certain technologies does not necessitate that we do in fact create them (e.g. Nuclear bomb), and there are many profound questions (some of which are ethical in nature) surrounding this topic Side: For the Motion
Safe renewable energy so you say. What an interesting concept that will not work. Without natural resources like oil and gas a country dies. Find me one country in the world that does not need oil and gas and you will show an under developed nation and by the way the yankees in the Blue States depend on it as of today because Global Warming has now become Global Cooling ! Side: For the Motion
If humanity keeps on polluting the planet and the population keeps increasing, we need FAR MORE technology than we have now to survive! Steven Hawking (no dummy), gives us about 100 years to destroy this planet and ourselves at todays rate. With Trump and his EPA Chief in charge for long, I believe that could be cut down a bit. We need all the tech we can get to feed and water this Earth Consider, if he is right, that it won't just go to 100 years and simply "cut off", things will be getting worse, and the fight for good water and edible food will start long before that! If you don't really believe it isn't it kind of stupid to gamble with a situation like that??? Side: Against the Motion
@TzarPepe If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting further tech. advancement would only be necessary given certain goals such as better Medical, freeing people up intensive labor type jobs, increasing our knowledge about the Universe, entertainment value, ect. ect. and if we don't hold those goals as a collective majority, then further tech. is not required? Side: For the Motion
To say, "this requires that" is an incomplete statement. example, "I need to eat" To say, "This requires that for such" would communicate a great deal more. example, "I need to eat in order to live." Otherwise, there are too many blanks to fill. I need to eat in order to not be hungry I need to eat in order to be in a good mood I need to eat in order to have energy I need to eat in order to fall asleep I need to eat in order to keep my mind off things I need to eat in order to etc. etc. etc. See, the first statement expresses a naive comprehension of causality. The side effect of this is that a great deal of creative process goes into interpretation of that statement. The consequences are that ultimately that communication, understood as the accurate transference of information, is distorted. The resulting chaos has all participants speaking about different things while believing that they are speaking about the same thing. The cosmic joke is that they actually believe that they understand each other. And it is this ignorance of the nature of causality that leads people to buy into all manner of identity fallacies that add fuel to the fire of superstition that is paganism. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is The Answer. Repent, and believe the good news! God is Salvation! Side: For the Motion
|
