Technology should not speed up too fast.
Agree
Side Score: 9
|
Disagree
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
1
point
Actualy, mechanical and computorized techologies were one of the greatest contributions to unemployment rates. They employed more people to make the machines, but then they replaced those people with machines to make machines, and the produced machines in turn are able to replace several workers at a time in many other jobs. Some jobs are even barely existent nowadays. Others are performed by a small group of people, or even just one person, because they use computers or automated mechanical contraptions or robots, while they used to be done with a greater number of people doing it by hand. Dangerous jobs especialy, are more and more performed by machines only. In that case it may be a good thing. If a new machine is invented, they hire people to make the machinery to manufacture it. Then they discard those people. It's a cycle that may tend to get worse. Side: agree
1
point
so true for example currently there are sweatshops and such due to marketing giants such as iPod not having enough employees. I'm not saying sweatshops are good but at least it is a better alternative to people scavenging for food and money perhaps even considering/doing prostitution just to try live their lives. Side: Disagree
1
point
Unfortunately, there will never be a speed at which human technology will be speeding too fast. Never. Ever ever. We can be making major technology leaps once a year and that won't be too fast. But, even still, too fast is still too fast. Too fast in relation to the development of technology is equivalent to amagedon, so NO, it shouldn't speed up TOO fast. Even though fairy tales will never come true. Side: agree
In truth it actually doesn't. There's too many interests keeping it from doing so. A great example is computer hardware (it works practically the same with everything else, but in computers it seems a bit blatant sometimes), in which a company will never release their most worthwhile products until they sold out their least worthwhile products. In other words, when a great piece of hardware comes out and is considered the highest product available in the market, it still doesn't mean the manufacturer can't do better. Most likely they have already done, or at least researched, better models. They will sell something better than what's already on sale when these sales are falling to a low profit phase, they'll make some money out of this better product, and start producing or researching an even better model with part of the income. And the cycle is vicious, as they release products in small amazing steps, instead of large astonishing ones. They don't do this solely for marketing purposes and interests. While that is a strong (and true) reason to do it, they also actually need to do it for the survivability of the company. If a company releases the best they have and then they can't research something better while their income is actively paying their workers, then they will have nothing but bankruptcy. Not getting ahead of themselves is in the end a good survivability strategy, and a way to not have technology advance too much at a time. Side: agree
-1
points
|
1
point
1
point
I agree. But it's not technology that is the problem at this point. It already reached that level. There are some things that stand in between that kind of technology and its practical usage, some of them are pricing and adequate facilities. Most countries, or some states in many countries, don't have adequate facilities to use certain advanced equipment. Nor do they have adequately trained personal. But whenever some new piece of medical technology comes out, its price is overwhelming, even for a governmental institution, and even more for the humble common mortal. Money may be the worst monster in this tale... Side: agree
1
point
Disagree. Why shouldn't it? I've been reading some of the predictions predicted by various people on wikipedia and I have to say they look amazing. Even seeing the new glasses that can let you have a screen infront of you will be a massive step in the advancing of everyday life. Being able to do anything right infront of you, needing no physical objects? Just awesome. Also I read about having a virtual reality in the next couple decades, where most of the things will go on there. I would love to be in that, and it would be endless fun, and possibilities to discover new things. Why, if we could cure cancer in 10 years, wait 100 years just because people think technology should not speed up too fast? Surely fast is a good thing? Side: Disagree
1
point
Generally with our thirst for more power and mobility as well as gadgets and time saving we would quite easily need the technology to speed up fast to quench our thirst for more. A good example is that not so long ago the iPod 4 came out and now with the iPod 6 and all it is considered"inferior". Plus I myself would like to seem some of the inventions that the future holds ^^ Side: Disagree
0
points
|