Technology neverending, is that ethical?

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Same problem with nuclear disarmament.

But what's the alternative? We can either keep the course ourself, leading to certain destruction, or we can stop our pursuits and hope that other nations will follow our lead.

If we keep at it, destruction is inevitable. But if we stop our 'progress', then the chance of avoiding this annihilation must drop, at least to some degree.

I highly doubt we could ever get the entire world to halt progress on technology.

[Didymos Thomas]

Me, too. But so what?

Should we persist in error because others persist in error? I don't think so.

[Holiday20310401]

When's the last time that the whole world has come together for a uniform cause anyways? What would bring about that?
Would some sort of new kind of religion that could be for the sake of morality and not for power be possible. A religion founded by the people for the society, and not for the sake of governing.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

When's the last time that the whole world has come together for a uniform cause anyways? What would bring about that?
Would some sort of new kind of religion that could be for the sake of morality and not for power be possible. A religion founded by the people for the society, and not for the sake of governing.

The only thing that would bring that would be our survival as a species. That's the common denominator between every culture - it wants to ****ing survive. So, if our existence really were threatened, I'd hope that we could put our differences aside and work together. Though, I don't really even have faith in that.

[Holiday20310401]

So a way to hasten our morality to become as quickly evolving as technology is gaining would be to stop war, because that would stop the threat to survive within ourselves.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

So a way to hasten our morality to become as quickly evolving as technology is gaining would be to stop war, because that would stop the threat to survive within ourselves.

Well, not quite.

There are 3 levels of threat for humanity.
1.) Biological
2.) Ideas by us (this encompasses everything, from our ideals of justice that create war, hate, love, whatever...basically just anything that has the potential to destroy us as a species that is the heart of us humans)
3.) Technology

Number 1 hasn't killed us yet, and doesn't look like it will actually wipe us off the earth entirely anytime soon (however, many people do die a year from diseases such as HIV). Number 2 definitely still has the potential to kill us, and will be a result of us arming the nuclear warheads, as Didy proposed (among other things, like chemical warfare). As for number 3, the singularity hasn't occurred yet, but if and when it does, it may be our biggest threat.

[Holiday20310401]

Is technology not the same as number three,an outcome of many ideas turned into inventions?

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Is technology not the same as number three,an outcome of many ideas turned into inventions?

There's much debate over this, but the rationale that differentiates the two is that with number 3, even though it is an outcome of number 2, it still lends as being a completely separate threat since it will be conscious in a sense. It will be similar to number 1, as in, technology will have no morals, it will destroy just as biological viruses destroy with absolutely no remorse. And because of this, it won't have anything to do with number 2 anymore; it will have a conscious of it's own that threatens humanity.

[Holiday20310401]

So a difference between humans and machines is our conscience is like right vs. wrong, with emotions to give it pizazz. lol. With machines, morality is a non existent attribute, given that their decisions are based upon true and false.
Then again, perhaps our emotions are governed by reactions to right and wrong interpretations. A machine could have emotions that come from true and false and would have an illusive sense of being 'artificial'....

What's your definition of conscience? Because what would you call somebody if their actions were governed not by the sense of right and wrong, say that sense was deprived, what would a person turn to? Emotion?, lets say that emotion was not available, what else would determine actions.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

So a difference between humans and machines is our conscience is like right vs. wrong, with emotions to give it pizazz. lol. With machines, morality is a non existent attribute, given that their decisions are based upon true and false.
Then again, perhaps our emotions are governed by reactions to right and wrong interpretations. A machine could have emotions that come from true and false and would have an illusive sense of being 'artificial'.

Well, though it sounds absolutely bizarre, it's possible machines may even develop intelligence so advanced it may actually understand our reasoning for morality, and essentially have emotions of their own. In the next decade we will have the technology to scan the entire brain, and perhaps delve into some of the reasons why we actually feel and what in the brain causes these responses. There's no reason I see why technology won't be able to apply some of this. Sure, we like to think that we are special and machines would never have a conscience, but I wouldn't bet that's the case.