The Limits of our Society

[dharma_bum]

To where is scientific progress supposed to lead us?

Technologically speaking, we have more now than we could possibly ever want. Why are we still trying to progress and grow and expand? What is the purpose of technology? You could say to make lives better, but then why is most technology of a military or consumerist nature?

My question is, what are we ever going to do with all the unnecessary science we have at our disposal?

It's like we're trying to solve all of Earth's problems with inventions instead of ideas or changes in lifestyle.

I propose that society has nowhere to move but back. We will eventually realize that there is nothing more to discover, see, hear, taste, feel, and our only course of action is to take a step back and adopt simpler lifestyles. I hope.

[Theaetetus]

I think you miss the target by calling out science. All science is supposed to be is a process to explain observations about the world and universe. It is not that we have unnecessary science, but rather, have found many unnecessary uses for scientific discoveries. Much of the technology we have created is destructive towards life, which is absurd when you think about things in terms of life quality and survival.

You do begin to describe what is wrong with society implicitly though. The issue is not science and technology, but rather values. The problem is that what society has come to value is destructive to the well-being of society. Only by revaluing values can true progress at the societal level be realized.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

Technologically speaking, we have more now than we could possibly ever want. Why are we still trying to progress and grow and expand?

I cannot even imagine why you would say such a thing, let alone how you would even know such a thing. It might have been something someone would have said 500 years ago, and with the same justification. We do not know yet how to cure cancer, or heart disease, or Altzheimer's, or Hunt's disease, and that is only a part list. We do not know how to eliminate famine, or earthquakes which bring untold misery. We have not even begun to explore space. I could go on and on.

[dharma_bum]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

We do not know yet how to cure cancer, or heart disease, or Altzheimer's, or Hunt's disease, and that is only a part list. We do not know how to eliminate famine, or earthquakes which bring untold misery. We have not even begun to explore space. I could go on and on.

And what happens when we do have all those things cured? When we have Mother Nature controlled under our will?

What happens when suffering ceases to exist?

We need suffering in the world. Without suffering, we have no comparison to know that we are happy. In order to appreciate something (life, happiness, good health), we must have a recent memory of the way our lives were without those things.

The way we use technology does not account for this fact. On our current road, it's only a matter of time before all diseases are cured (at least for those who can afford it.) It's only a matter of time before we colonize other planets. It's only a matter of time before we discover a scientific theory explaining how life was created. I just hope my life is over by the time these things occur.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

And what happens when we do have all those things cured? When we have Mother Nature controlled under our will?

What happens when suffering ceases to exist?

We need suffering in the world. Without suffering, we have no comparison to know that we are happy. In order to appreciate something (life, happiness, good health), we must have a recent memory of the way our lives were without those things.

The way we use technology does not account for this fact. On our current road, it's only a matter of time before all diseases are cured (at least for those who can afford it.) It's only a matter of time before we colonize other planets. It's only a matter of time before we discover a scientific theory explaining how life was created. I just hope my life is over by the time these things occur.

Probably it will be. But I still have no idea why you are opposed to curing cancer or heart disease. Very peculiar. I can suppose only that you, or anyone you care about, has not been seriously ill.

[dharma_bum]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Probably it will be. But I still have no idea why you are opposed to curing cancer or heart disease. Very peculiar. I can suppose only that you, or anyone you care about, has not been seriously ill.

Then you would be surprised to know that in my 17 years, I have seen many of my close family members suffer diabetes, skin, prostrate, and lung cancer, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, dementia, strokes, and death.

And I can say, truthfully, that witnessing these experiences has made me cherish the fragility of life, and to cherish all others, for their lives are equally as fragile.

If everybody lived forever, you would never have the incentive to be with them, or to say sorry to them, or to love them. Why talk to your father today when he'll be around tomorrow?

If we cure cancer and other such diseases, we will be nothing but apathetic towards life. As a society, we are already apathetic towards most things, even when there is still suffering in the world.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

If everybody lived forever, you would never have the incentive to be with them, or to say sorry to them, or to love them. Why talk to your father today when he'll be around tomorrow?

If we cure cancer and other such diseases, we will be nothing but apathetic towards life. As a society, we are already apathetic towards most things, even when there is still suffering in the world.

Well, that is pure speculation. But even if it is true, I'll take it. I am sure that even so, we'll still have enough trouble to make you happy. Especially if they do not affect you. Maybe it would be a good thing to pose the question to someone who is dying in agony from cancer, and ask him whether he would not rather be apathetic without it, and regret not having cancer. You might get an entirely different perspective on the matter. Purely abstract thinking so often leads straight to unadulterated absurdity.

[dharma_bum]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Well, that is pure speculation. But even if it is true, I'll take it. I am sure that even so, we'll still have enough trouble to make you happy. Especially if they do not affect you. Maybe it would be a good thing to pose the question to someone who is dying in agony from cancer, and ask him whether he would not rather be apathetic without it, and regret not having cancer. You might get an entirely different perspective on the matter. Purely abstract thinking so often leads straight to unadulterated absurdity.

You make good points. It's clear that my premise needs revision.

However, there are many people who have died from cancer happily and at peace.

Firstly, let me make clear a distinction between joy, suffering, and actual happiness. Joy is caused by something pleasant, suffering is caused by something unpleasant. Happiness is what occurs when you find the balance between the two.

Therefore, a physical suffering does not have to make somebody an unhappy person.

Perhaps it is more wise to say that to be happy is to experience suffering and joy without struggle. Struggling with suffering leads to unhappiness.

The way to prevent struggling is either to be happy with your life, or to have hope and faith that you will recover.

For example, let's say an elderly man is dying of cancer. Let's say his life has been lived well, he's brought happiness to many people, his children love him. He should have no problem dying happy. Now, if the man has done bad things, harmed others, he will certainly not be happy. Regret for his deeds will cause him to struggle to keep his life, to repent for his actions.

Now, in contrast, let's say a child is inflicted with the same disease. He would have a much harder time not struggling, for he had not been given a chance to live correctly. He, however, has the hope that he will get better. If he has faith, he has no need to struggle.

And I must say thanks to you - without people poking huge gaps in my arguments, I can't learn anything

Oh, and going back to my other thread, War is simply the gravest form of struggling.

---------- Post added 11-28-2009 at 01:31 PM ----------

Anyway, to get back to the purpose of the thread:

Technology tries to end suffering. It does not, however, end unhappiness. In fact, it simply makes the struggle for pleasure more severe.

People had the exact same chance to be happy 1000 years ago as they do today, and in some parts of the world, a better chance. Therefore, technological progress cannot create happiness.

Perhaps what I am arguing for is not a step back in progress. Logic would state that there is no way to go back. Progress does not always have to be bigger or better.

Maybe I'm just trying to progress towards a simpler, less flashy, more appreciative way of life with less instant-gratification and no risks.

[IntoTheLight]

Originally Posted by dharma_bum

It's like we're trying to solve all of Earth's problems with inventions instead of ideas or changes in lifestyle.

That certainly seems to be the case in the USA...

Technology has made our lives easier in many ways, but also made it more complicated. For every problem we solve with technology, we create a new one.

-ITL-

[Jebediah]

Originally Posted by dharma bum

If everybody lived forever, you would never have the incentive to be with them, or to say sorry to them, or to love them. Why talk to your father today when he'll be around tomorrow?

You would still have those incentives, because they are natural. Most people will be around tomorrow and we still talk to them...

If we cure cancer and other such diseases, we will be nothing but apathetic towards life. As a society, we are already apathetic towards most things, even when there is still suffering in the world.

Then we will cure apathy

Technology tries to end suffering. It does not, however, end unhappiness. In fact, it simply makes the struggle for pleasure more severe.

People had the exact same chance to be happy 1000 years ago as they do today, and in some parts of the world, a better chance. Therefore, technological progress cannot create happiness.

There's a limit to how happy we can be. It's not an evolutionary advantage to be easily satisfied.

There are some things that can make us happy though. People are happier on average than they were 1000 years ago. Heck, say what you want about antidepressants but they can help people with depression.

Maybe I'm just trying to progress towards a simpler, less flashy, more appreciative way of life with less instant-gratification and no risks.

I'll criticize our society for pursuing the wrong goals when I figured out how to be happy myself

I see what you are trying to say...but I think you would have to know a whole lot about history and psychology before you could say that our society is going about things the wrong way.

Technology is not a bad thing, I think you'll find that "ideas and changes and lifestyle" have to deal with the same biological limitations on happiness.