CreateDebate


Debate Info

76
56
Long Live Humanity Woe for Us
Debate Score:132
Arguments:110
Total Votes:141
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Long Live Humanity (56)
 
 Woe for Us (54)

Debate Creator

aoeoxoeoa(7) pic



Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?

Do you think we will survive long enough to colonize the stars or do you think we are damned by our own intelligence to destroy ourselves?

Long Live Humanity

Side Score: 76
VS.

Woe for Us

Side Score: 56
2 points

I think the two possible endpoints for humanity are singularity and self-destruction. I'm pretty sure the former is a lot more likely. I mean, humanity is stupid, but not that stupid. I'd put the odds at 90% singularity, 10% self-destruction.

Side: Long Live Humanity
Pessimist(182) Disputed
1 point

Actually, you'd be amazed at humanity's level of stupidity. Read the Darwin Awards

Side: Woe for Us
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

Yes, humans are that stupid.

Side: Woe for Us
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

US and Russia made it through the Cold War. Doesn't that count for something?

Side: Long Live Humanity

We will live long enough to colonize the moon, Mars and some asteroids. We have already taken steps to help our planet. Humans are incredibly adaptive and innovative. It's how we got from the stone age to where we are now.

Side: Long Live Humanity
1 point

If we keep going on the suicidal path we are on, and keep using up natural resources, the odds are for societal collapse, however, if we change before we go past the point of inevitable decline, we will prosper, I'm rooting for the latter.

Side: Long Live Humanity
2 points

I'll assume your intended question was "can humanity survive it's intellectual and moral infancy regarding technology?". Your "populating the stars (planets)" is already possible (Imagine a planet-hopping biodome equipped with mining resources [or cows ;] to procure fuel). The idea of an end-goal as populating the stars is a rediculous notion given that humans are retarded at peacekeeping (politics and military power-mongering will always take precedent) so a stellar humanity would look very similar to the one you see before you today. Along the line of maturation towards this end-goal, you picture a gradual increase in ethical living untill we one day live happily ever after colonizing planets. The fun part is that (as with all institutions) the scientific body has become more of a cost-cutting, efficiency expert having, paycheque idolizing, name-whoring, political institution concerned with operation costs (the only significant technological breakthroughs in the last half-century have been military [military application], and pharmaceutical [medical], [Anyone? Thought so.]). With the amount of resources afforded to the military industrial complex, you (I refuse to associate with the masses) have fucked yourselves and ensured that the technology you so intellectually account for, stays out of even your own hands, and inside classified documents ("It's ok though, cuz are troops are at risk").

There is a solution, but it involves unearthing what your money is being spent on, taking back control of your scientists, and holding all parties involved accountable.

Answer this, and you'll have your space parade.

Interesting little tidbit.

Cancer research has received millions and billions of dollars over the last 40 years (first one, then the other). All that science has shown for it thus far is chemotherapy. How many more billions of dollars (maybe close to a trillion now) need to be spent on it (considering this economy as well) before everyone realizes they're flogging a dead horse. I believe the cure exists already, but even if it doesn't, when does the income stop? All the rallies, all the parades, pins, foundations, races, teary commercials, stickers etc... This elusive cure for cancer is it's own institution and in 40 years it hasn't delivered a damn thing.

The cure for cancer is health education, funny that this takes a backseat to medication. Right now if the "cure" was found, a million people around the world would be out of work, you don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand why powerful people wouldn't want a cure.

-End of rant-

:)

Side: Deeper issue

I believe the human race ought to go back to a pre-industrial society. It'd surely solve most of the problems afflicting humanity today. Obesity would be a rarity, seeing as how people would walk much more frequently; we'd have farm animals rather than polluting machinery. Weapons of Mass Destruction would disappear along with all the other monstrosities (er, conveniences) which science has brought us. Homicide and other crime rates would decrease as the urban population dispersed to rural areas; AIDS and other 'epidemics' would reduce along human interaction. Divorce rates would decline as spouses became dependent on each other, which one would argue is good for society, especially children.

As obesity rates decreased, and healthier foods consumed, illnesses would become less common and, while lifespans may decrease slightly with the lack of medication, they would be healthier and more worthwhile.

While war may still occur, it would do so on a much lower scale.

Side: Woe for Us
2 points

Obesity would be a rarity

And disease commonplace.

we'd have farm animals rather than polluting machinery

Methane released from farm animals is 21 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

Weapons of Mass Destruction would disappear

Prolonging the misery.

Homicide and other crime rates would decrease as the urban population dispersed to rural areas;

And then rise again as they fight over dwindling food supplies.

AIDS and other 'epidemics' would reduce along human interaction.

As would our ability to cure them.

Divorce rates would decline as spouses became dependent on each other

And we revert to a completely male-dominated society.

which one would argue is good for society, especially children.

Children who have no future anyway.

As obesity rates decreased, and healthier foods consumed, illnesses would become less common

Until the next major mutation of flu, which would kill millions.

while lifespans may decrease slightly with the lack of medication, they would be healthier and more worthwhile.

For the year or two that they continue before being cut short by famine, disease or war.

While war may still occur, it would do so on a much lower scale.

Smaller wars for smaller populations, effects exactly the same.

Side: Long Live Humanity
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

Methane released from farm animals is 21 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

That's a laugh.

Prolonging the misery.

Precisely.

And then rise again as they fight over dwindling food supplies.

Doubtful.

As would our ability to cure them.

Cure? Ha!

And we revert to a completely male-dominated society.*

What is so bad about that?

Children who have no future anyway.

Of course not - with nuclear holocaust behind every corner.

Until the next major mutation of flu, which would kill millions.

It could just as easily happen today - of course, the government would not then be responsible.

Smaller wars for smaller populations, effects exactly the same.

The effects of all of Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not nearly as devastating as that of WWII.

Side: Woe for Us
2 points

If you want to go back to pre-industrial society, societies still exist, and they are known as the Amish among numerous tribes in Africa and Asia.

Before cars and when horses were widespread, there was one problem; the manure become immensely cumbersome and smelly that in urban and rural areas, leaders knew something had to be done. Therefore, the car was invented; however, it needed oil and gas. Well, whales at first were the only source of oil, and whales were hunted near extinction until a man discovered all the oil under the ground. Now, we are at the same predicament as our predecessors were in formulating innovative ways to reinvent our technology.

Therefore, it is hard to say that we are still in technological infancy and maybe approaching technological adolescence.

Can we survive? Yes, but we must think outside the box and reinvent.

Are we self destructive? Without a doubt.

Humanity existence is a process through progress, yet it doesn't mean that humanity's existence is necessary.

Side: Long Live Humanity
0 points

humanity is dammed by our own inelligence -coz we humans have ever used anytin properly........we don trust human resourse but we trust machines which in return leads to lack of jobs, greed, crime ,a society which lacks empathy , sympathy , gratitude, respect.anything used in a limited quantity is good but we either overuse it r not at all use it..........we r the xtreme species............we destroy our lives an other's tooooo.......we r the one who created modern technology..........wen we create it we put our name in front of it tellin everyone we CREATED IT but wen it is responsible 4 destruction r if it is harmful instead of puttin our name first we blame the modern teachnology. if we can stop blamin others an clean our own dirt.........it wud lead to a much beter society.....an we can give the credit 4 that to us

Side: Woe for Us
2 points

coz we humans have never used anytin properly

Incorrect. We are an amazingly intelligent species.

we trust machines which in return leads to lack of jobs

Luddite.

a society which lacks empathy , sympathy , gratitude, respect.

I do not think you can generalise our societies like that.

we destroy our lives an other's too

True, but 99% of the population is not guilty of such a crime.

but wen it is responsible 4 destruction r if it is harmful instead of puttin our name first we blame the modern teachnology

Actually, that is what you are doing.

if we can stop blamin others an clean our own dirt

You are the one blaming others.

Side: Long Live Humanity
1 point

If we get rid of anybody who's bent on dominating the world then we might have a chance. This means most western societies. 90% of their actions (the dominating type not just europeans) has been towards harming the world whereas the other 10% has improved it. If only they'd spent 100% of their energy into improving the world... then we wouldn't be where we are now. More of a paradise less of a shithole.

Side: Woe for Us
2 points

Before western ingenuity, the world was a shit-hole. Now we have hot water and electricity on demand. I think this is better.

Side: Long Live Humanity
Kinda(1649) Disputed
1 point

Now we have hot water and electricity on demand. I think this is better.

Now we have poverty in India, Africa and China. I think this is not better.

Side: Woe for Us
aoeoxoeoa(7) Disputed
1 point

Are those comforts really worth giving us the ability to blindly destroy our world? Our greed and short sightedness in such matters of comfort, profit and short-term benefit, our complacency, our seemingy inability to handle such things responsibly - the real threat we pose to ourselves far outweighs the paltry comforts of hot water and electric light - it however does not (perhaps) outweigh the massive advances in science, medicine and insight we have gained as a byproduct of these technologies.

Side: Woe for Us
sirius(367) Disputed
1 point

Name one extremely powerful country in history that did not use its power for its own ends.

Side: Long Live Humanity

"Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has, as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity" - Nikola Tesla (1919)

Anybody care to explain how the atomic bomb served as an act intended to the "betterment of humanity"?

Side: Woe for Us
Hollowman24(6) Disputed
2 points

The atomic bomb was originally intended to end the largest war in human history. In addition, scientists knew that the technology used in the bomb could also be used for peaceful purposes. However, the use of the bomb has been hijacked by power- hungry politicians and generals to further their own ends.

Side: Deeper issue
Pessimist(182) Disputed
1 point

Sure. The atomic bomb was used to end the world's biggest, bloodiest and costliest war EVER. Sure, close to 500k died and several more suffered, but the atomic bomb SAVED the 2 million+ lives analysts estimate would have been needed to completely invade Japan, and that figure doesn't even consider the wounded. Personally, I think that saving 1.5 million lives, no matter their ethnicity, is good for humanity.

Side: Long Live Humanity
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

I agree.

However, the atomic bomb still exists. It can still do a great amount of damage.

Albert Einstein said: "If only I had known, I would have been a locksmith."

He also said: "It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." That means, that we have progressed (if you agree that such a monstrosity is 'progress') to the point where one idiot can cause untold damage to both life and limb.

Side: Woe for Us
1 point

Human beings are the smartest species on the planet. But we are also the stupidest!

Side: Woe for Us
1 point

we have manged to misuse every invention we have ever made example the nuclear bomb.

so with most countries with that weapon not counting future inventions. Humanity will not survive a world war 3.

Side: Woe for Us