Could we manage without technology?

[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

That's the whole point I've been trying to make. Technology, in essence, is critical to human survival as a whole.


Humans are already animals. :x

Definitionally, yes, connotationally, no.

[Starkipraggy]

Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide

That is not the point of the thread. It is not saying we ran out of ways to you use technology, it is just saying that all technology as of now ceases to work. If we ran out of the ability to create technology, we would be humans no longer.

I meant "Will we make it" as more of a "could we survive in such conditions". Let's say everyone were to lose their thumb and anything using any sort of energy becomes disabled (steam/electric etcetera), rendering us unable to use 99% of the technology we possess. Can we survive?

EDIT: I chose the thumb because as the opposable digit, it is one of the main components for gripping things: vital for using most tools well.

[The Maple Syrup Baptist]

Without technology, I would not have shotgun to shoot bear between eyes.

[Ender the Xenocide]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

That's the whole point I've been trying to make. Technology, in essence, is critical to human survival as a whole.


Humans are already animals. :x

Scientifically, we are classified as animals only because we share the same physical traits. We are very different. When you see a dog or even an ape form its own culture and civilization, you let me know.

And technology is PART of human nature. Without it, we are not humans. The will to improve and adapt is already preprogrammed in us.

[Exon Auxus]

Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide

Scientifically, we are classified as animals only because we share the same physical traits. We are very different. When you see a dog or even an ape form its own culture and civilization, you let me know.

And technology is PART of human nature. Without it, we are not humans. The will to improve and adapt is already preprogrammed in us.

There is no "scientifically". Humans are animals. You are using the term "animal" to describe a brute, an organism without a well-developed brain or the skills to create the kind of civilization that we as a people have today. That's wrong, because humans exist as a species, live and die just as others. By that, and many other criteria, we are animals and that just cannot be argued.

And even beyond that what you're saying is still invalid. Humans don't share the same physical characteristics as other animals, because not all animals have hearts, brains, and lungs. And last I checked, humans don't have flagella or tough outer shells. Humans are very different from other animals, true. But by that you almost seem to classify organisms into two categories: humans, and everything else. Which, to an extent, is arguable by saying that dogs or apes don't like civilized or cultured lives. But by that same notion, how can you concretely define civilized? You can't, because its a relative term defined only by the conceptions and viewpoints of various factions. What I'm getting at is that yes, dogs, apes, and whatever other animal you want to name do have their own "civilizations" and cultures, but they don't live by what we as a society label as civilized - which is fine.

I can't believe I'm debating the logic that rests in the fact that humans are animals. This is a simple fact that can be found in the opening chapters of even the most remedial Biology textbooks...

Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide

And technology is PART of human nature. Without it, we are not humans. The will to improve and adapt is already preprogrammed in us.

This is the most foolish and ignorant thing I've ever heard. Let me ask you - if someone ripped their clothes off, left all their material possessions behind, and went to live in the wilderness eating berries and small animals, then they wouldn't be a human anymore? Would not their genetic makeup still match ours? Sure we'd call them a lunatic, but they will always remain a human until they, hypothetically, stumble into some strange breeding arrangement that changes their genetic makeup enough to classify them as a different species.

Yes, I think technology is a significant and influential aspect of human culture. However I fail to understand that it can be defined as such a keystone factor that, when removed, humanity suddenly becomes labeled as a new creature. Bring your theory to any knowledgeable college professor and it will likely be stigmatized as completely absurd and wholly wrong, with not a page of credible scientific or logical backing to support it.

[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

But by that you almost seem to classify organisms into two categories: humans, and everything else. Which, to an extent, is arguable by saying that dogs or apes don't like civilized or cultured lives. But by that same notion, how can you concretely define civilized? You can't, because its a relative term defined only by the conceptions and viewpoints of various factions. What I'm getting at is that yes, dogs, apes, and whatever other animal you want to name do have their own "civilizations" and cultures, but they don't live by what we as a society label as civilized - which is fine.

Well, typically, "civilization" is an urbanized society, as opposed to a rural or tribal one. Meaning animals do not have civilization. However, neither did humans for much of history, so civilization is not something to base humanity off of.

[Exon Auxus]

Originally Posted by Lusankya

Well, typically, "civilization" is an urbanized society, as opposed to a rural or tribal one. Meaning animals do not have civilization. However, neither did humans for much of history, so civilization is not something to base humanity off of.

I think you're leading yourself to a dead end. What you're saying is, before cities and urbanized society, there was no civilization. That's incorrect - that's our modern, yet general definition . The definition of civilization and what is civilized changes as people and technology grow. There is no set answer. Pre-Columbian Era humans did not claim that they were uncivilized if they didn't live in cities or urban areas. Let me use this example. Before the English settlers first landed in America, Native Americans had thought themselves civilized, and they continued to argue this notion in American courts even in the mid-19th century. I highly doubt that they discredited themselves as civilized simply because they didn't live in an urban society. Even so, there exist journals from the early settlement period that describe Europeans going insane after being exposed to Native American life, claiming it was far more civilized and wholesome than that which they had previously lived.

[Ender the Xenocide]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

There is no "scientifically". Humans are animals. You are using the term "animal" to describe a brute, an organism without a well-developed brain or the skills to create the kind of civilization that we as a people have today. That's wrong, because humans exist as a species, live and die just as others. By that, and many other criteria, we are animals and that just cannot be argued.

And even beyond that what you're saying is still invalid. Humans don't share the same physical characteristics as other animals, because not all animals have hearts, brains, and lungs. And last I checked, humans don't have flagella or tough outer shells. Humans are very different from other animals, true. But by that you almost seem to classify organisms into two categories: humans, and everything else. Which, to an extent, is arguable by saying that dogs or apes don't like civilized or cultured lives. But by that same notion, how can you concretely define civilized? You can't, because its a relative term defined only by the conceptions and viewpoints of various factions. What I'm getting at is that yes, dogs, apes, and whatever other animal you want to name do have their own "civilizations" and cultures, but they don't live by what we as a society label as civilized - which is fine.

I can't believe I'm debating the logic that rests in the fact that humans are animals. This is a simple fact that can be found in the opening chapters of even the most remedial Biology textbooks...


This is the most foolish and ignorant thing I've ever heard. Let me ask you - if someone ripped their clothes off, left all their material possessions behind, and went to live in the wilderness eating berries and small animals, then they wouldn't be a human anymore? Would not their genetic makeup still match ours? Sure we'd call them a lunatic, but they will always remain a human until they, hypothetically, stumble into some strange breeding arrangement that changes their genetic makeup enough to classify them as a different species.

Yes, I think technology is a significant and influential aspect of human culture. However I fail to understand that it can be defined as such a keystone factor that, when removed, humanity suddenly becomes labeled as a new creature. Bring your theory to any knowledgeable college professor and it will likely be stigmatized as completely absurd and wholly wrong, with not a page of credible scientific or logical backing to support it.

Note one, just so you know how to actually base an argument, never insult the person you are arguing with. It just puts us both on the defensive. Why must you say that I am ignorant just because I have presented another idea that is different?

You completely contradict yourself when you say that humans are animals is not a scientific fact, and then you follow up in another paragraph saying it is a Biology term. Scientifically, humans are animals categorized as a mammal. Morally however, we look at ourselves as ABOVE animals because we have managed to develop to a more "civilized" state.

Anyway, if you ripped the ability for a human to adapt and develop technology, they would not be human. They would be like a monkey, a somewhat intelligent creature, but somehow incapable of building something as of yet. You misunderstand me, I am saying that if you strip a human of his clothes and he decides to go live with the animals, he will eventually develop tools and a shelter.

Put a human in the jungle, he will take a branch and carve it into a spear. Kill the fish, build a lento. That is all done using the will to adapt, which is part of human nature.

You look at what I said to critically. When I say a person is stripped of the will to adapt and develop technology, they will eventually cease to exist. No longer human, as in morally dead. No way to progress in the tech tree of life, so they will simply stay as an animal, a stupid animal in the wild.

I think you're leading yourself to a dead end. What you're saying is, before cities and urbanized society, there was no civilization. That's incorrect - that's our modern, yet general definition . The definition of civilization and what is civilized changes as people and technology grow. There is no set answer. Pre-Columbian Era humans did not claim that they were uncivilized if they didn't live in cities or urban areas. Let me use this example. Before the English settlers first landed in America, Native Americans had thought themselves civilized, and they continued to argue this notion in American courts even in the mid-19th century. I highly doubt that they discredited themselves as civilized simply because they didn't live in an urban society. Even so, there exist journals from the early settlement period that describe Europeans going insane after being exposed to Native American life, claiming it was far more civilized and wholesome than that which they had previously lived.

There is a preset answer to what a civilization is. There must be a form of writing, a form of government, and some form/concept of time (calendar). Those three major traits are what historically and scientifically makes up a civilization. And while Lusankya is partially correct, there is room for improvement in that answer.

[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

I think you're leading yourself to a dead end. What you're saying is, before cities and urbanized society, there was no civilization. That's incorrect - that's our modern, yet general definition . The definition of civilization and what is civilized changes as people and technology grow. There is no set answer. Pre-Columbian Era humans did not claim that they were uncivilized if they didn't live in cities or urban areas. Let me use this example. Before the English settlers first landed in America, Native Americans had thought themselves civilized, and they continued to argue this notion in American courts even in the mid-19th century. I highly doubt that they discredited themselves as civilized simply because they didn't live in an urban society. Even so, there exist journals from the early settlement period that describe Europeans going insane after being exposed to Native American life, claiming it was far more civilized and wholesome than that which they had previously lived.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Primarily, the term has been used to refer to human cultures which are complex in terms of technology, science, politics and division of labour. Such civilizations are generally urbanized... Still, even when used in this second sense, the word is often restricted to apply only to societies that have attained a particular level of advancement, especially the founding of cities... The level of advancement of a civilization is often measured by its progress in agriculture, long-distance trade, occupational specialization, and urbanism. Aside from these core elements, civilization is often marked by any combination of a number of secondary elements, including a developed transportation system, writing, standards of measurement (currency, etc.), contract and tort-based legal systems, characteristic art styles (which may pertain to specific cultures), monumental architecture, mathematics, science, sophisticated metallurgy, politics, and astronomy.

Civilization = technology, science, politics, organization, urbanization. There is no species on Earth that possesses the five of these except humans. Also, there is a distinction between the term "civilized" and "civilization". The former may merely mean polite. The latter speaks of a specific form of human society. Furthermore, no one said civilization meant "wholesome". Civilization can be utterly brutal and barbaric.

[Exon Auxus]

Oh brother.

Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide

Note one, just so you know how to actually base an argument, never insult the person you are arguing with. It just puts us both on the defensive. Why must you say that I am ignorant just because I have presented another idea that is different?

Now, I did not directly insult you. I never called you ignorant, I called your assertion ignorant. Nevertheless, even if I had called you ignorant, it doesn't translate into an insult. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge on a particular subject. You know? If you're ignoring someone you have a lack of knowledge on what they're saying? Like I'm going to ignore the fact that you're trying to teach me how to "base an argument" regardless of the fact that you have failed to present any credible, factual, or remotely convincing statements thus far?

In terms of presenting an idea that's different, that doesn't play here. You cannot have an opinion over whether or not a human is an animal. It's just a fact widely accepted by society that will likely never go away. Or, perhaps you can have an opinion, but it's just going to be wrong and there's nothing you can do about it, because this is something that cannot really be debated. I can make an opinion that two plus two equals five, and no matter how hard I debate it, I'm still wrong.

You completely contradict yourself when you say that humans are animals is not a scientific fact, and then you follow up in another paragraph saying it is a Biology term. Scientifically, humans are animals categorized as a mammal. Morally however, we look at ourselves as ABOVE animals because we have managed to develop to a more "civilized" state.

Two things here. The first is that you have missed the shift in what I said. True that I did state that the fact that humans are animals has little to do with science - and it doesn't. The point is that you don't need to have a Biology book in your hand to know that humans are animals. It's common sense. There is no scientific backing needed to prove that we're animals, because if we aren't, then what in the world are we? That's a two-pronged explanation. Because you don't appear to understand the fact that humans are animals regardless of science, then I chose to prompt you to read Chapter One of "Biology for Dummies", which proves the same thing. There is no contradiction. Those are just two different methods I used to convey the same message. But contradiction or not, that assertion is still wrong.

Now tell me. What do morals have to do with the distinction between animals and humans? Morals are related to character and ethics, and what is right or wrong with regards to them. That couldn't be more irrelevant. Please chose your vocabulary carefully and try not to become so engrossed in proving me wrong that you make your own words look silly...

Anyway, if you ripped the ability for a human to adapt and develop technology, they would not be human. They would be like a monkey, a somewhat intelligent creature, but somehow incapable of building something as of yet. You misunderstand me, I am saying that if you strip a human of his clothes and he decides to go live with the animals, he will eventually develop tools and a shelter.

Put a human in the jungle, he will take a branch and carve it into a spear. Kill the fish, build a lento. That is all done using the will to adapt, which is part of human nature.

The "will to adapt", moreover the ability to adapt, exists in so many thousands of species on this planet it's ridiculous. To characterize this trait as something uniquely specific to humans is completely wrong, because it's the central backbone that fortifies the concept of evolution - and not just with humans, but so many other animals.

Let me use a part of your example, building a shelter. I'm the first human to build a shelter for me and my young. It cannot be argued that I have become technologically advanced. And it appears that you're arguing that humans are using technology to survive by finding whatever material to hunt and make that shelter. Now call me crazy, but aren't birds doing the same thing when they find twigs to build nests for their eggs? And aren't beavers doing the same thing when they search for suitable materials to create dams that can help protect themselves from some predators and make it easier to acquire food?

Look at this. If we argue that a human is using technology by finding some wood and building some shelter, no matter how crude, then we must argue that these animals are using technology by doing the same. There are no double standards. Now bare with me.

This is the point. You have argued that the ability to use and develop technology is what makes a human, human. So by your logic, these animals, and countless more, may as well be humans too. That's the fallacy I'm getting at. And it's wrong.

You look at what I said to critically. When I say a person is stripped of the will to adapt and develop technology, they will eventually cease to exist. No longer human, as in morally dead. No way to progress in the tech tree of life, so they will simply stay as an animal, a stupid animal in the wild.

And at this point I'm beginning to wonder whether your pulling these ideas out of a hat or talking just for the sake of talking, because this just doesn't make sense.

Next.

Originally Posted by Lusankya

Civilization = technology, science, politics, organization, urbanization. There is no species on Earth that possesses the five of these except humans. Also, there is a distinction between the term "civilized" and "civilization". The former may merely mean polite. The latter speaks of a specific form of human society. Furthermore, no one said civilization meant "wholesome". Civilization can be utterly brutal and barbaric.

Re-read that definition paying close attention to the first word. Primarily. Not always. That's the core of my argument, and it's as if you're looking right through it to argue something else. You must look beyond our contemporary definitions and realize that this has not always been the commonly accepted definition of civilization. This was not it's definition a millenium ago, and last I checked, there was civilization a millenium years ago.

And right, I never said civilization meant wholesome either. I used that term as an extension of the message I conveyed with my allusion to the Native Americans. It relates to their lifestyle as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're civilized. Once more you've scoped in on some minute detail that I provided in an example, and doesn't chiefly act as the basis of my argument. Discussing this is getting you nowhere.

...And you aren't just gonna go believe everything you see on wikipedia are you...?

[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

Next.



Re-read that definition paying close attention to the first word. Primarily. Not always. That's the core of my argument, and it's as if you're looking right through it to argue something else. You must look beyond our contemporary definitions and realize that this has not always been the commonly accepted definition of civilization. This was not it's definition a millenium ago, and last I checked, there was civilization a millenium years ago.

And right, I never said civilization meant wholesome either. I used that term as an extension of the message I conveyed with my allusion to the Native Americans. It relates to their lifestyle as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're civilized. Once more you've scoped in on some minute detail that I provided in an example, and doesn't chiefly act as the basis of my argument. Discussing this is getting you nowhere.

...And you aren't just gonna go believe everything you see on wikipedia are you...?

The Journal "Nature", a well-established scientific journal, found that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. There is little reason to cast doubt on Wikipedia on as uncontroversial a topic as civilization. It's inaccuracies mostly stem from political issues.

You're arguing the exception to the rule, the outlier, the rarity. There's almost exceptions to every single rule, so there's little point in attempting to prove a general rule by pointing out the exceptions. Furthermore, what was the definition a thousand years ago doesn't matter (the term, and possibly the concept, certainly did not exist a thousand years ago). What matters is its definition today. Unless we are going to debate about the ancient Babylonians would have fared in a world without technology, there is little point in showing how they would have thought about the subject.

[Ender the Xenocide]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

Oh brother.



Next.



Re-read that definition paying close attention to the first word. Primarily. Not always. That's the core of my argument, and it's as if you're looking right through it to argue something else. You must look beyond our contemporary definitions and realize that this has not always been the commonly accepted definition of civilization. This was not it's definition a millenium ago, and last I checked, there was civilization a millenium years ago.

And right, I never said civilization meant wholesome either. I used that term as an extension of the message I conveyed with my allusion to the Native Americans. It relates to their lifestyle as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're civilized. Once more you've scoped in on some minute detail that I provided in an example, and doesn't chiefly act as the basis of my argument. Discussing this is getting you nowhere.

...And you aren't just gonna go believe everything you see on wikipedia are you...?

So far, son, the only animal on this planet that has exhibited any technological advancement is the human. And since there is no real classification for a technologically advanced being, it is logical to call humans the only species that can develop technology (known to humans). Yet again, you fail to see what I am getting at.

And the definition of Husband has changed several times too, does that make the modern definition of the word false? No it does not. And do you think this is all a game? So far, the only person really getting himself worked up about it, and the only person who has lost their cool is you. You are a cynical person who has a sarcastic comment about anything that another person says. Go home, draw a nice warm bath, and just lay there. Don't think, just lay there. I defend Lus because I both respect and, in some aspects, agree with him.

[Exon Auxus]

Originally Posted by Lusankya

The Journal "Nature", a well-established scientific journal, found that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. There is little reason to cast doubt on Wikipedia on as uncontroversial a topic as civilization. It's inaccuracies mostly stem from political issues.

You're arguing the exception to the rule, the outlier, the rarity. There's almost exceptions to every single rule, so there's little point in attempting to prove a general rule by pointing out the exceptions. Furthermore, what was the definition a thousand years ago doesn't matter (the term, and possibly the concept, certainly did not exist a thousand years ago). What matters is its definition today. Unless we are going to debate about the ancient Babylonians would have fared in a world without technology, there is little point in showing how they would have thought about the subject.

Allow me to keep this message short and sweet. There is no exception, no rarity. Let's stay modern then. In some primitive African tribes that are still present today, there exist children that have never seen cars, skyscrapers, or airplanes. As far as they know, a watering hole can be the most technologically advanced invention out there. By our conceptions, they may not be civilized, but by theirs, they're as civilized as can be.

That's the point cut and dry. So now I'm not going to go in circles saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by Ender the Xenocide

So far, son, the only animal on this planet that has exhibited any technological advancement is the human. And since there is no real classification for a technologically advanced being, it is logical to call humans the only species that can develop technology (known to humans). Yet again, you fail to see what I am getting at.

And the definition of Husband has changed several times too, does that make the modern definition of the word false? No it does not. And do you think this is all a game? So far, the only person really getting himself worked up about it, and the only person who has lost their cool is you. You are a cynical person who has a sarcastic comment about anything that another person says. Go home, draw a nice warm bath, and just lay there. Don't think, just lay there. I defend Lus because I both respect and, in some aspects, agree with him.

Do not call me son. Someone as foolish as you could never earn the position of my father, even through a joke. Thus far you have failed to present any kind of logical argument and have apparently resorted to other factors to defend your already miniscule dignity. You have presented an opinion in multiple threads that lacks any sort of thought and intellectual depth, and you're being pounded for it by a number of members. You have missed the message of every single post I said, leaving all of our discussions to end up in wild circles. Your idiocy tires me without end, and debating with you is comparable to arguing with a drunkard. Let's be clear, I don't care that you defend him, because it was never my goal to garner your support. As far as it concerns me, you both can be wrong together. I don't desire your respect, your admiration, your support, mkay?

At this point I'll admit it. You disgust me, because you represent a shameful percentage of people who attempt to establish that they have some sort of intellectual vitality while being blind to the fact that they make themselves look completely idiotic. In my books you exist as a nobody with a peculiar ability to make himself look retarded while somehow enjoying it. I'm finished with you, so take your petty insults elsewhere as they don't phase me.

[Lusankya]

Originally Posted by Exon Auxus

[COLOR="blue"]


Allow me to keep this message short and sweet. There is no exception, no rarity. Let's stay modern then. In some primitive African tribes that are still present today, there exist children that have never seen cars, skyscrapers, or airplanes. As far as they know, a watering hole can be the most technologically advanced invention out there. By our conceptions, they may not be civilized, but by theirs, they're as civilized as can be.

That's the point cut and dry. So now I'm not going to go in circles saying the same thing.

And they would be wrong. You cannot argue a point based on the idea that people might think that way out of ignorance. Just because said African tribe is ignorant of civilization, does not make them civilized.

[Pokemon Trainer Sarah]

Alright guys, let's relax a bit and stay on topic. If you can't debate without insulting each other then please leave the thread until you cool down. Let's just keep it civil okay? =)

This is just a general warning for everyone. If it continues, then the thread will have to be closed.