How Much Technology Should We Utilize as a Society?
More than We Have Now
Side Score: 10
|
 |
Less than Or Equal to Now
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
technology should be used to an extent that is required. it basically reduces our work and these days we have exploited its use to an extent that we do not have to do any work using our intellect . which ultimately prohibits our growth both physically and mentally. Side: More than We Have Now
@Dermot We have absolutely no choice in how much we utilize , the fact of the matter is technology is constantly evolving and growing at a very fast pace and how could it’s progress be stopped either way ? Well, there actually is currently fierce debate in the Scientific and Philosophical communities regarding the advancement of Artificial Intelligence for instance. New technologies of tremendous/unprecedented levels of power are not to be taken lightly as there may be all sort of both; (A) Predictable potential consequences (B) Unforeseen potential consequences Sci-Fi has long explored this topic amongst others. I could cite some interesting Sci-Fi stories corresponding to this general topic if it is deemed helpful? Side: More than We Have Now
I remember Stephen Hawkings in a lecture saying that A I would eventually “ run the show “ and we are actually reaching a stage where we cannot stop it ; it’s also amusing because in the future we will inevitably have A I programmed with out political, idealogical and religious ( or lack of beliefs ) . I would like a link to those stories thank you Side: More than We Have Now
Technology will be utilized everything even thought people data new technology . Developing technology is faster then we think we can't expect what happen our future , context more bigger computer is constantly evolving such as smart phone ,cloud , AI . There are significant developer working to purpose our future that utilize more new technology like AI. I phone undermined our life we change how to spend free time , this is constantly developed several programmer . Side: More than We Have Now
5
points
@excon Hello x, You pose this question as though technology is an enemy of the people. DUDE!!! excon No--I simply posed a question that at least two members on CD (Brontoraptor & Marcusmoon) have stated views that would come down on the side of the debate "Less than Or Equal to Now". --------------------------------------- Excon, I have discussed with you previously (on at least two occasions) about you jumping to unsupported conclusions about my positions on a particular topic I have opened to discussion. This is a debate site, no questions should be beyond scrutiny--and I would be interested in hearing/engaging with members such as bronto & marcus that may hold a different position than the norm in order to gain further insight and/or refinement on the matter at hand. Edit: Also, anyone who is familiar with my argument history here on CD would know that I am quite fond of Star Trek. This should be an indication of where my sympathies most lie Side: Less than Or Equal to Now
Hello again, x: You comment. I respond. Then you deny you made the comment, and disparage me for not knowing what’s inside your head. Look. If I asked weather jerking off every day is better than jerking off once a month, would I be asking about jerking off, or inquiring about the days of the month?? excon Side: More than We Have Now
|
I never got a chance to respond you your question of whether there is a purpose to all this madness. There is. I created that debate for the same reason I created FactMachines (which I suppose I will delete). To present, again, my questions. But in the most aggressive challenge the internet allows (perhaps overly so). It doesn’t bother me when someone truly cannot engage in the back and forth of debate. When you can engage, but you refuse, while maintaining a holier-than-thow style of false intellectualism built on inaccurate presumptions, I’m inclined to make it very clear what you are doing. The best way to illustrate the shallowness of that kind of “deep-thinking” is with critical questions. A refusal to answer illustrates lack of substance, so I will magnify the refusal to answer. Especially since you’ve done the same thing in an unrelated different topic. You ultimately stated that you never meant for your position to be taken as your position, but simply a position to get the ball of ideas rolling. But if the position presented cannot stand up to the smallest scrutiny, then it is time to move onto a different position. That’s what the rolling ball looks like.That cannot happen if you do not attempt to hold the position against scrutiny. But you refused. An honest thinker should welcome the free market critique of his non-free market ideas. You chalk up my position to me “drinking the punch” because you A: do not know from where I derive my understanding of economics (as you’ve demonstrated) and B: do not want to do the work of defending the positions you present. Look, it doesn’t matter that I’ve lost most of my respect for you. If/when you present something of substance, I will address what you’ve said. It doesn’t matter who is saying a thing if the thing is true. I will similarly address deficient positions you present. I will also continue to magnify your fallacies and evasions when you’re interacting with me. If you can manage to drop the fallacies and evasions, you won’t get any grief from me. If you find this post to be a personal attack, have it or me deleted. Side: Less than Or Equal to Now
|
