|
| Thread: It's raining data, hallelujah. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 09, 2014 08:32 AM |
|
|
I have to say I don't understand the level of disagreement here. It should be clear that EVERYTHING, every new technology that comes on a global level - which means every single one, today - has consequences, and there are always negative consequences attached. Take modern transportation system, for example - MOBILITY. This has had a lot of upsides, but there ARE numerous downsides, and apart from the obvious ones, a not so obvious one is the fact that higher mobility as a matter of course comes with less use of one's legs (walking) and more sitting (using some sort of vehicle), which has lead to an increase in health problems with the back.
So the question isn't, ARE there potential downsides. The question is, are we able to foresee all the downsides and are they worth the upsides. Another related question is, how long until a new technology should get an ok?
That said - nuclear technology should have NEVER gotten the ok, not because of the involved risks of running a nuclear power plant, but because of the waste problem. It was obvious that sinking million tons of wastes in the oceans or burying them in the ground wouldn't do.
The next question is personal endangerment versus endangerment of everyone. Smoking is fine, as long as it's prohibited in public buildings: if a personal risk is known - well, everyone their own. Which means, that smoking is irrelevant as an example here, since the wireless technologies are no individual problem. The question isn't whether you use a mobile, the question is how many people around you use one, and is there something akin to passive smoking?
Be that as it may - it doesn't actually matter much. We live in a time of fast transition, and things will change a lot, even in the near future. We have opened a couple of doors in the last 200 years, and there is no option except opening more. Whether there is some long-term increased cancer risk somewhere along the line when it comes to mobile communication technology - who cares? After all, cancer is a natural cause of death when everything else keeps working. We will have to solve that problem anyway.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 09, 2014 09:42 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 09:45, 09 Dec 2014.
|
Quote:
GMO is the most obvious.
I don't think this is a good example. The most objections against GMO that I know of and which I share myself are that it's a lower quality food in terms of taste, nutrition, etc. compared to the "natural" products. Potential health issues are usually a secondary, even tertiary argument against it. People basically say "it's bad and I can tell from my own experience, why am I supposed to like it just because someone else claims it's cool?".
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 09, 2014 10:26 AM |
|
|
Then, there are cases of fake products, they produced honey here that was mostly modified corn syrup. It was neither nutritious or tasty as actual honey. But those are rather criminal cases, not much different than people selling sausage from horse meat etc.
I think the way our population skyrockets, it is quite meaningless to insist on natural organic food all the time for every one, it will keep getting more expensive, you can't live in a city of ten million and expect to eat fresh tomatoes right of the farm, each day.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 09, 2014 02:36 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 14:39, 09 Dec 2014.
|
@ Artu
Quote:
What do you think about the current information flow that has reached a peak never seen before, especially after the widespread ownership of smart phones and tablets?
I agree with several here; quoting and knowing are two very different things.
Quote:
Do you think that it's hindering actual human connection and communication?
How can it do otherwise? I.e. I think “driving and entering-text" is doing more than killing or maiming because folks don't seem to comprehend they are driving a large and heavy metal and plastic box that best depends on 100% complete mental concentration. <Imo> almost as dangerous, is the routine dismissal of present and engaged human interaction for whatever reasons. i.e. Just in my lifetime, it has became possible and unfortunately preferable for some to text with dozens of "icons representing only vague notions of people" across the globe and talk to no live person at home etc.
Here’s the core-issue to me; I grew up interacting with a bank tellers, gas-station attendants, grocery clerks, receptionists, billing clerks for local firms and on and on. Today, those people, encounters and those jobs are often non-existent and sitting alone in a room is not helping teach or broaden social skills, no matter how much data is collected or shared. I.e. emoticons are cheap imitations of what human-beings need to see up close and personal. I’m not talking about one time rubs with a stranger doing a job but repeated interactions within a neighborhood where you encountered live human-beings that you had to learn to live-with with no matter your likes or dislikes. Furthermore, many times the most important communication to be understood was in the body-language of individual personalities and looking back in time now, those different folks made my life deeper and richer despite whatever personal challenges they could represent.
However, I “lived” all these changes. What worries me today, is that all the much younger have zero idea what might missing in their life today. After all, what person can be aware of a very important change in human history, if unable to garner any personal perspective of that change?
Quote:
My grandma plays word games on her iPad all the time nowadays but when she goes to bed, she doesn't take it with her and reads a book for a few hours before going to sleep.
This is another big concern of mine; she knew "books" she developed the habit (I treasure old books, public libraries, big cushy chairs and fireplaces) and books are totally dependent on "CREATVE-imagination;" the mind is needed to visualize the story. Today’s movies "force-feed and steer minds" in what they must see. i.e. Growing-up, I was the most scared when a movie shared little of the supposed monster by info or images; now they show how a body can be sliced a hundred ways. That is not horror it is insanely gross.
One point I should make here for clarity, because physical-books can be a problem too; I am disabled and quite happy that the internet exists, it is a heck of a tool for someone like myself that is forced into isolation. However, I think because of my earlier “social-programming,” when I download a book, by far, I get the most satisfaction when I read a book or poem out loud with my wife, or share some gem I found etc. and discuss with her. When this is not possible, my on-line efforts become much more shallow to me and are only private efforts to prevent personal boredom. I hope the life I live now is never accepted as normal for any healthy person.
Quote:
I am not directly blaming the technology itself and suggesting some sort of post-modern Luddite movement.
This is not directly at you Artu but for me people need to understand that the most profit a company can make is to eliminate human-jobs. Without people there are no arguments, no health issues...no nothing. If I ruled this planet; TECH could only replace dangerous work, not every job and function that a human-being can do. But hey, when young folks are wired and part machine themselves, they might not recognize that anything is amiss. Btw, I just saw a grown man calling a security-robot “Bob” and thereafter called the robot "him and he." Sorry folks it will always be an IT. I'm glad this Luddite will be dead soon.
@ Neraus 
@ blizzardboy
Quote:
I think in the coming decades, we're going to see more and more programs dedicated to correcting this problem, not at all unlike Alcoholics Anonymous. There is a strong correlation between extremely heavy computer use and depression and academic underachievement.
I keep reading that depression is a growing problem in the U.S. It seems reasonable to me that being isolated in a room reading and watching life instead of living life might be a big part of the national malaise.
@Valeriy, just saying I share your concerns.
To me, if we ignore the "electrical" operations of modern-tech and the human body we are being very foolish. I wonder about the "invisible" and know for a fact that it was not till much later after introduction into society that electricity-providers had to start informing people; that living under and near electric-power lines and power-stations is a bad idea. The radiation-fields that are produced are long-term exposure health issues, just the same as my working with lead for twenty+ years.
Today the air is full of gps-communication etc. and I sometimes wonder what that energy might do to the electrical workings of the human-brain. <imo> Air pollution is more than smog and sound or Radon seeping up from the ground.
To be very skeptical and cautious about new tech is just being wise. We still have snake-oil salesmen today that are only interested in making money and they can be in the form of a large modern international corporation. There are lots of examples of companies only becoming concerned with the well-being of humans when forced by law and that brings in two big problems; the existence of such a law and the necessary legal dollars for the public to challenge the well-heeled lawyers representing the firm and technology in question.
@ All, make a better day for two….hug someone.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
| |
|
|
