#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
why nation's fail ??
New technologies are extremely disruptive. They sweep aside old business models and make existing skills and organizations obsolete. They redistribute not just income and wealth but also political power. This gives elites a big incentive to try to stop the march of progress. Good for them, but not for society.
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
I was paying attention, thank you. Modern was a reference to new, they're both vague terms referring roughly to the near present. I don't know. You tell me. While you are at, please show me how that technology actually caused the nations to collapse. Additionally, the argument as presented here was that technology disrupted society from within causing nations to collapse and you are defending that point by arguing that other nations/groups took over others because technological advantage; different points. Pay attention man. I am not saying technology does not influence the rise and fall of nations, but I think it is a massive logical fallacy to put so much emphasis on it. 1
point
With the steam engine and general industry, not only did many tribes fall to empirical England, the kingdom of England fell to constitutional England. What other than changes in material, objective reality which technology is such a part of could cause such massive societal changes? Sure, the steam engine and "general industry" had an impact but on their own they would have meant very little. Even the term "general industry" reflects simultaneous shifts towards democratization and political centralization that precipitated the industrial revolution. My issue with the theory of this argument is that it gives far too much credit to changes in technology, and ignores the very factors that allow that technology to have the impact it does; it is just too simple. 1
point
There have been technological developments that have had very limited impact when they could have had incredible impact (consider inventions that were introduced or became commonly used considerably after their initial invention). Barbed wire revolutionized westward expansion and ranching in the history of the U.S., however it would have had limited impact if the government structure had not existed to promote westward expansion to begin with (settlement acts and incentives), if there were not a political and social sense of personal property rights, etc. The internet has had limited impact upon locations which lack the appropriate infrastructure due to economics, population density, cultural attitudes, etc. I'm not denying that technology has impacted historical developments and even dramatic shifts in power, however I think it is irrational and unfounded to assert that it is the primary or sole cause of those developments or power shifts. 1
point
Its certainly the primary, if you keep asking questions you'll find that material reality and the means of production have to do with everything. For example the government structure and settlement acts were due to the need for capitalism to reach new markets, capitalism ultimately is but an expression of the means of production. So long as capitalists were in competition, in order to maintain prices they had to increase demand and decreases costs. This was due primarily to changes in production, the barb wire fence might of increases production of sheep by keeping wolfs away, which allows one sheep herder to lower prices, and expand, the others thus sees this and buys wire, which drives the need to go west in search of materials to make such wire, and so on. The internet in areas which lack certain features will find themselves with internet as certain technologies become available and prices decrease. For example low population density areas are starting to be serviced through ahhoc networks. Marxist much? Not all nations/societies that have collapsed were capitalist, so there goes your argument. At any rate, if you are arguing means of production then that is economics of which technology is a subset but not the entirety. As far as the barbed wire, that had little to do with wolves and much more to do with establishing personal property lines and containing herds. And sure, there is an element of the "economic man" at play, but there is also personal interest and selfishness at work that could easily exist without the overall capitalist market. My point with the internet was not that it will never reach those areas, but that we can observe that there are factors at play which influence how technology enters (or does not enter) a particular area. If technology were the be all end all then the internet would have been introduced and had an identical impact upon all areas regardless of income or population density. I was demonstrating that the issue is far more complicated than you are allowing for. 1
point
I was dealing with specifics, the same point can be made with feudalism, or with containing herds. What causes or allows for disparity between those areas or in income? My point is that it all boils down to the material objective reality, which is shaped and formed by technology. My point is that it all boils down to the material objective reality, which is shaped and formed by technology. And my point is that whatever it boils down to (it can be material objective reality... whatever that actually means) technology is not the ultimate determinant because it exists within a more complex system. 1
point
I suppose it is a possibility, but I am dubious that technology is as or more integral to complex social systems than is human nature, social structures, power dynamics, economies, etc. I do not think it makes sense for it to become more significant over time, any more than it would for politics, economics, or human nature to become increasingly significant; I just do not see that there is grounds for a feedback loop like what you are talking about. I feel, however, that we are fairly close to consensus seeing as your latest suggestion is that technology is one root among many... which was rather my initial point. Am I incorrect? 1
point
your point was that idealistic abstract and actually non-existent things caused other things. "human nature" and so on are often talked of as if they are real things, but usually people mean them as nothing more than abstractions if we are lucky and if not they don't quite know what they are talking about. Mine is that the structure of human organization can effect future human society and technological developments, but not at the pace and not as fundamentally as changes in technology. Technology forces human organization to change, because human organization is founded upon its relationship to technology. Another root which changes slowly is geography, technology however changes quickly and it does so due to it's own properties it spurs into motion. Your point was that idealistic abstract and actually non-existent things caused other things. Quite to the contrary, actually. While many people do throw around "human nature" in an abstract sense I meant it in a very scientific manner. There are certain things that we do factually know about human nature (e.g. in-group out group social dynamics) which have factored quite heavily in human history. I think it is patently absurd to dismiss the role of human biological predispositions in a discussion of human societies, even if we do not have a complete understanding of those natural predispositions. Similarly, power structures and economies can be construed in a very vague sense but do not necessarily have to exist as such. If we were to examine a particular nation or society we would quite readily identify the power dynamics within that group as well as the economic model, down to minute particularities. I use them as general concepts only because we are talking about nations generally rather than of particular nations. Your argument that technology is the lone or primary catalyst completely sidesteps the examples and analysis I have given you as to why technology alone cannot create change. If a society is not set up to fully embrace or integrate a technology it will make no difference that that technology exists. You give far too much autonomy and power to technology, which is ultimately a human byproduct impacted by other elements just as surely as anything else. There is no single element in society which exclusively predominates the course of human history. Also, rapidity of technological development has very little bearing on the extent of its impact; geography has arguably had a greater impact even though it changes more slowly (at least, if we are discussing physical geography). Consider for example the ancient Latin American empires which collapsed during the conquests. Technology has been demonstrated to have played quite a limited role in what transpired. While the conquistadors had guns and the like, they were vastly outnumbered and should not have experienced the victories that they did. What played a far greater role in what transpired in the collapse of these civilizations was actually differentiated geographies which gave rise to different disease pools amongst the populations, and actually had little to nothing to do with human choices or society at all. (For a more elaborated analysis of the role of disease see "Plagues and Peoples" by William Hardy McNeill, or "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.) 1
point
I fail to see how boats which transported the disease is at all little to nothing to do with how the disease affected the native population. The fact is that without the technology which allowed for the transport of the Europeans, those areas would of continued to of been under native American control till such technology or similar came around, or a disease of another origin or carried through migrating animals came along. While geography is important, it has became less important as technology advanced, we can now deploy military teams any where in the world from half an hour from the command to do such is said, where previously due to geography it would take years to do the same. nearly every concrete example you can give can be laid firmly at technology as the cause, or if not can be said to be overcame by future technology in most situation. Due to modern technolgy, we practically have no longer have differentiated geographies(which humans can live in). Boats were hardly new technology at the time. They also did not cause the collapse of the empires, but rather facilitated the transmission of diseases which would not have developed as they did without geography to begin with. Furthermore, geography remains important even as its measure becomes consolidated as travel become more efficient. Different types of geographies, for instance, will support diseases whereas others will not - making technology only partially relevant in global pandemics or epidemic outbreaks. Sticking with the disease example, cartographic research also reveals patterns which diverge around wealth disparities so the distribution of people according to economic factors bears at least as much impact as technology does on the distribution of disease. The examples I have given do not have technology firmly as their cause and you have yet to prove a single one as supporting that assertion. As far as technology overcoming difficulties, not all changes are problematic or need a technological solution - and at any rate your argument that technology could be said to be the solution to something caused by something else underscores my point that technology is not the sole causal element. 1
point
I fail to see how something is not firmly a cause if it wouldn't of occurred otherwise. Yes, there are other factors, but boats(and the ability to voyage for such time in open waters was certainly new for many people) is what caused the epidemic by allowing the differentiated geographies to well come together again in a sense. If there is water up high in a container, and none down low in another, and we attach a tube from the top to the bottom such that water flows, we can say that gravity and the different initial water levels had more to do then the tube with the flow, but we would be neglecting that the tube is what changed the situation and allowed for the flow. The differentiated geographies are like the two containers, and disease the water, without boats and in general technologies there would be no flow, no exchange of diseases. I fail to see how something is not firmly a cause if it wouldn't of occurred otherwise. That is actually rather my point. The boats could not have spread the diseases if the distinct geographies had not first existed to create the separate disease pools. Without the pre-existing geographies, the boats would not have led to the collapse of ancient American societies and the conquests likely would not have succeeded (e.g. it would not have occurred otherwise). In real life, causality is not so simple and straightforward as A => B, but includes a chain of causalities which feed back into one another. Certainly, technology is important but it is not a lone nor necessarily primary cause. So yes, without the boats the disease pools would not have mixed, but just as truly the boats would have had little impact at all if it were not for the geographies which produced the disease pools to begin with. 1
point
True, but would you agree that as technology is developed those other causes become less significant, and technology more significant? Perhaps to the point that entire societies which dependend on something being significant, such as geography being a a barrier of travel could fail if suddenly it wasn't that way? 1
point
You are still making an argument based upon temporal causality. Additionally, this debate centers upon the collapse of nations not stable ones and disease pools and disease transmission are at least as integral if not more so than technology. You are still trying to use a singular, linear logic that denies the complexity of causality and the importance of multiple variables. 1
point
1
point
You seem to be confusing potential with what causes the potential to be realized. If I raise a bucket in the air, it gains potential to fall, but it's falling is caused by something which releases that potential, other wise it's just a raised bucket. Sure without the potential, it falling wouldn't of been possible, and in that sense is a cause but it is a minor one since from those facts alone it isn't sufficient that the bucket falls, the thing which makes it necessary that it falls is the same thing that causes a threshold to be crossed, where potential becomes reality. So if a bucket falls we can blame the person who put it up high, the person that filled it, the person that made it, the person that made the materials it was made out of, the person that acquired those materials, and all the people in between which exchanged the various things, and well yes without them the bucket falling might very well be impossible, all they did was create the potential for a bucket to fall. Not at all. My point is that most if not all factors and events are both generators and realizations of potential. I think though that we are rather at cross-ends on this issue and not progressing very much in our discussion. I am ready to agree to disagree if you are, since I do not see either of us changing our views and I have said just about all that I have to say without repeating myself. 1
point
No one factor is uniformly more important in the generation or realization of potential across time. Where technology may play a bigger role in one instance towards either end, it may have a much lesser role at another point in history. You will excuse me for not using your bucket analogy; I find it again to be an oversimplification of the complex causality and interrelatedness of the multiple factors affecting events. 1
point
1
point
Why not, generally its true that as technology advances the more obstacles it allows people to overcome, things become simpler, faster, and other factors less important. For example, the factors of sending a message to you was pretty much impossible in the stone age over whatever distance we are, certainly so near a time period of a much longer length than what it took me to send it to you know. The technology of sending information has superseded most obstacles of doing such. it no longer matters that there is probably a mountain between us, we have the technology to make it irrelevant. It is erroneous to reach a generalization without proffering a cohesive rational as to why such an observation is logical. While technology has made things faster, as you put it, I do not see what rapidity has to do with significance and I quite disagree that it has made things simpler. Your single example is not only flawed (geography is hardly obsolete - consider that we still have national boundaries, that resources are geographically dispersed, etc.) but inadequate to substantiate your claim. You lose the forest in search of a tree that does not exist. Consider that if what you said were true we should see a corresponding shift in our understanding of reality; we should not care to study politics seriously, governments would not matter much at all, public sentiment would be obsolete, national histories would bear little import, and in general we would consider only technology in our analysis of current events. Yet one will readily note that this is not the case, and that in practice technology has not become so overbearingly important that it trumps all other things. The applications and impact of technology have been and remain contingent upon co-existing circumstances and developments within other spheres. 1
point
Its not simpler to hit enter than it is to go on a 4 month journey? If you measure significance by time for example, then the thing which lets you message someone half way across the world in a second is much more significant than the mountain that would of otherwise made you deliver it 3 months later. The mountain doesn't even enter into the equation anymore, its no longer an obstacle, no longer significant to the question of communication. As for those things you mentioned, technology is not there yet, but it will be. You are still oversimplifying things. Certainly, technology is faster and that makes rapid communication easier. However, that does not make all things easier. For instance it is more difficult for dictatorships to control information. I would say it is quite rare if not actually a non-occurrence for something to have a singular, unilateral effect. As far as geography goes, your reasoning falls to the same fallacy. While the mountain is not as significant an impediment to communication as it once was, but it has become more important ecologically with regard to weather patterns (which themselves impact and are impacted by economics in an international economic system). When one thing changes everything else shifts; it is never so straightforward as you claim. As for your claim that technology will one day surpass all other things, you have not only failed to give proof that technology is following that trajectory but also failed to provide a convincing rational. There is no single factor nor invention which has held sole sway over all other things and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that should change. |
