CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:20
Arguments:15
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (15)

Debate Creator

misterfr33ze(120) pic



Is it possible to dig ourselves out of this technological hole?

Supplement a defect, weaken a species.
Follow-up Question (www.createdebate.com)

Add New Argument

Basically any detrimental hereditary trait that has been compensated for by technology will be passed on as a carrier of this trait has become an acceptable mate. Had this technology not been created, this trait would've died along with the original carrier as he would not have been an acceptable mate.

Also, as our bodies become dependent on medicines they stop producing the necessary antibodies and essentially become weaker. So really technology just makes our species weaker and thus requires us to make new and better technology to compensate.

I suppose this discussion should be centered around whether or not we could survive (as a species, not individually) without this technology and whether it would be worth it.

On a side note, without this technology we would be living more 'natural' lives and not be a detriment to mother nature like we are now.

Loudacris(914) Disputed
1 point

The success of the human species in the last several thousand years demonstrates that the net effect of technology is positive. Yes, medicine may lessen the bodies natural product of antibodies, however, medicine has allowed the human race to flourish. Human population is increasing, not decreasing.

Translation: I don't see the technological hole.

Human population is definitely increasing, but is that necessarily a good thing? Our population cannot continue to increase forever because resources aren't unlimited so that isn't necessarily a great indicator of a positive impact.

From 10,000 B.C. til just before the Inudstrial Revolution, the population increased steadily, but in just about 300 years, the population has increased over 5 billion and could reach 8-12 billion by 2050.

If our technological advancements don't keep up with our population increases we will not be able to maintain any decent standard of living. We must keep in mind that this question I ask wouldn't even have been an issue 300+ years ago, but as our population continues increase so rapidly because of the significant techological advancements in the last few 100 years, it will be. Maybe I'll ask again in 40 years...

Supporting Evidence: Population increase (www.google.com)
2 points

The more reliant we are on technology, the more it'll hurt if we lose that. We depend on this artificial environment we have built called society - away from natural selection. If we were pitted against the forces of nature without technology, I'm sure many 1st world people would die.

I'm not sure if we can dig ourselves out of this "hole" without forsaking technology completely (which would result in a massacre and halt all scientific progress in discovering the mysteries of the universe, which I think is something we're obligated to do as self-aware beings). Maybe we can't. All we can do is hope society keeps progressing, however due to crises such as peak oil the future is uncertain.

Really the only thing we can do is enjoy it while we still have it. What else is there to do?

1 point

Is it worth it? Fuck yeah it is. Modern medicine has expanded the lifespan of the average human being from around 25 years old (Neanderthal), to about 67 years old (Current). The Haber process feeds over 2.3 billion people in the world, and water purification methods prevent a many sicknesses and illnesses from foreign that can be found in water. Modern medicine is what allowed us to cure and prevent smallpox, which in its existence, killed over half a billion people. So, we aren't becoming weaker, we are becoming stronger due to medicinal technologies. As our knowledge expands, so does the likelihood of us curing and preventing more serious diseases and epidemics. Yes, it is worth it.

2 points

Here are some facts I pulled from an article:

“With current rates of development, particularly in South-East Asia, Africa and in Latin-America, the remaining forests and productive grasslands are being converted or made un-productive at a rate of 0.5-1% annually. In less than 50 years, the growth in human pressures resulting from both population growth and increasing resource consumption will seriously impact 50-90% of the land area in developing countries primarily by reducing land productivity and water resources.”

“Some of the largest lo improvements in water quality and pollution have been made in the industrialized countries, however, the high energy use in the industrialized countries is contributing the most to global climate change.”

“800 million people were undernourished by the turn of the millenium, and more than 1.7 billion suffered from lack of good drinking water.”

“There is a significant risk that the cumulative impacts will lead to the collapse of many natural buffer mechanisms within 50-100 years, and, hence, substantially exacerbate the impacts of pollution and climate change.”

"Land and water degradation has its greatest impacts on the poor and in developing countries by increasing poverty, reducing labor productivity and exacerbating current economic and social crisis. Hence, environmental degradation is also affecting the economy, health and in-equity of people."

The life we lead isn't sustainable (long term). You aren't taking into account any of the negative effects these new technologies have on the environment. Obviously, in the here and now (at least in developed countries) we still have good sources of water and food supply, but in the less developed countries, this is not the case.

This wouldn't be the case if not because of overpopulation that stretches our resources thin. As great as it is to live to 67 years, that puts a greater strain on the environment than did the 25 year old neanderthals.

Either way, I didn't really mean "is it worth it?" That's a dumb question, no one in their right mind would say it wasn't when they are alive today. What I meant was is it beneficial to our species as a whole and to the environment in the long run.

Supporting Evidence: Human Impacts and Vulnerability (www.globio.info)
1 point

Without technology we'd have been eating bananas on a tree in some jungle.

The stick first used by some ancestor of us was a technology too.

As was the wheel. The fire. And so on.

1 point

I guess that's the main problem with this, how far back do we go?

The thing is, the different technological advancements you mentioned don't have significant environmental impacts or negative impacts on the developement of our species like some of the technologies today. The significant impacts have been felt in the last 300 years (post-industrial revolution).

1 point

I think it's very possible. On top of that, I doubt we are gonna have to do anything to get out. Technology will destroy technology. As Einstein once said, "I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

That sounds like a fine way out of the hole to me, but there are other ways too. Replace technology that weakens us with tech that helps us. Like replace cars with bikes. Not all tech is bad, as I've said before.

Yeah, unfortunately w/ the rate our population is growing (1 billion in 11 year) it might be too late to turn back without significant casualty. A third of our population is not even at the age to have children so we'd be hardpressed to level off the population even if said population reduced reproduction. That's the problem w/ technology, it encourages increased reproduction, the problem is w/ each generation the populatoin increases dramatically.

To the extent that we can guide our evolution and help it along, yes.

1 point

The hole in which your are describing does not exist; technology has always been to our benefit for the most part and always will. What does it matter if it is what keeps us going as a species obviously we will never really see the need to totally cut it from our life's, this would be an overwhelming/unneeded change in lifestyle of the human race.

1 point

For the first near 12,000 years (since 10,000 B.C), technology only allowed a steady increase in the world's population. Within the last 200 years, the population has increased 6 billion. The current rate of consumption is unsustainable. The reason "technology has always been to our benefit" is because we never strained our resources before like we have now. The population will be at about 9 billion by 2050 and our resources are already stressing thin and our consumption per capita (in developed countries) is exceedingly high. Please see one of these other two debates for more info:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Will_our_technological_advancements_keep_up_with_our_population_increase/debate

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What_should_be_done_about_overpopulation_(if_anything) )

Muaguana explain's this much better than I can.