where would the world be without technology?

[Iyce Da Kidd]

If there were never electricity, never benjamin franklin, never anything that would make life easier for humans, where would you think we'll be?

Do you think we would've evolved into something more superior than apes *in strenth*. If the human brain wasn't capable of learning at the rate it does, do you think apes will over-run us? (just a stupid question lol)


Technology is basically what Humans live off of, if it was to suddenly stop, we'd all be whiped out.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Technology is basically what Humans live off of, if it was to suddenly stop, we'd all be whiped out.

Man kind has been striving for thousands of years without modern tehcnology. Look at ancient Greece and Rome, Mycenae.... We've made ourselves dependant on technology. Life would be harder without it because we've become so used to it. But we wouldn't be wiped out.

 

[Texas]

Not all. Only the ones that live off technology literally.
If you mean all technology, liek the most primative one, man cannot survive simply because man's gift in order to survive is his brain.
What if people started thinking of what-if's

 

[Majin_You]

What we've evolved into was out of adaptation - no doubt, we would have continued to evolve in such a way that we could deal with how the world would turn out. No electricity wouldn't rob us of housing, language, or art/music. We'd still, most likely, have evolved intelligence so as to adapt to our surroundings.

How things would be different now, though....well, if we were still under the impression that electricity and automatic devices of any sort were posessed by demons, I suppose we'd be doing a lot more accusing and less research (not a pleasant thought - the last thing we'd need is more and more time spent on witch burning)

 

[Synth]

It'd be a lot more peaceful... first and foremost.

 

[The Cheese]

It'd be a lot more peaceful... first and formost.

Peaceful as in noise or peaceful as in less war? If its the first one I agree, if its the second then I fail to see how less technology makes you more peaceful.

 

[SailorAlea]

It'd be a lot more peaceful... first and formost.

I'm sorry, but I really have to disagree with that. Getting rid of technology wouldn't get rid of edged tools/weapons, and we all know how many countless millions have fallen on the edge of a blade.

I don't think ancient Germany was peaceful, do you? Or France and England's countless wars.. Or the Roman Empire's conquests.. Low-tech, high-lethality.

I don't think Humanity as a whole has ever been truly peaceful, and probably won't for another thousand years.

 

[ZariusZer0]

Well, i see technology as an extension of our evolution. Only now, we have a say in how we adapt. We've evolved the ability to evolve our tools, leading to further progression of our race, through our ability to influence the world around us in ways other races cannot.

 

[DragonDude]

It'd be a lot more peaceful... first and formost.

Technology doesn't kill people. People kill people.

Regarding the original question, how would technology just suddenly stop?
It's not like a machine that requires a constant supply of energy or it shuts off. The nature of the human mind and our ability to logically think things through results in technology. We've always had that ability.

I see most of technology as a snowball rolling down a hill. The snowball constantly gets larger and larger over time, so long as there is snow to build on. The telephone wouldn't have been invented had the uses of electricity not been discovered. The early computer modems wouldn't have been invented had the telephone not been invented (atleast, none of the examples would have been invented the way we know them). New advancements are all additions and combinations of previous advancements, each making the overall scope that much bigger.

 

[Synth]

Technology allows for more growth than the normal human being is capable of.

All wars, since the beginning of time, were mostly land and natural resources disputes.

My point is that the removal of "today's" technology takes away the ability to fight a global war.

 

[owa]

Technology allows for more growth than the normal human being is capable of.

All wars, since the beginning of time, were mostly land and natural resources disputes.

My point is that the removal of "today's" technology takes away the ability to fight a global war.

I agree, just think, media is the driving force behind many things these days, and disputes of oil, and land are what force much of the war. Weapons of mass destruction - planes - etc, if none of that was around, we'd be safER

Think about it, no planes, no 9/11. No bombs, not nearly as effective warfare, no guns, etc. Battles just couldn't be fought if every technology was wiped out starting right now.

We'd still have wars, but due to the lack of technology, we'd be forced to be more excepting, and less critical. Countries couldn't risk going to war. Instead of being able to send over a few thousand soldiers with weapons and pin point accurate bombs, we'd need to send hundreds of thousands with swords, over seas on boats that take weeks to get to the otherside. With the risk of crashing.

I'd kill myself if we lost our tech though. I live for music, no music, and I kill myself.

 

[SailorAlea]

Technology allows for more growth than the normal human being is capable of.

All wars, since the beginning of time, were mostly land and natural resources disputes.

My point is that the removal of "today's" technology takes away the ability to fight a global war.

How many more people do you think have been killed with swords, knives, etc, compared to bullets, or weapons of 'mass destruction'?

 

[ZariusZer0]

Just think about kurzweil's law. In any evolutionary process, the time between paradigm shifts increases as order does. And as any ordered event continues, the rate at which it becomes ordered faster increases the more ordered it is. In other words, an exponential growth. This eventually means that basically, we've seen nothing yet.

Think of this. Take a man from 1 A.D. Put him into the year 1600 A.D. It'd be weird, but he'd probably be able to manage, right? Now take a man from 1600 A.D. and put him in our time. Big difference in differences, huh?

At today's rate of progress, assuming it's a constant, and not a perpetually increasing exponential factor, the last century accomplished about 25 years of progress. Contrarily, this next one, is suggested to accomplish what 200 centuries would at our current rate. Incredible time to be alive, isn't it?

 

[Synth]

How many more people do you think have been killed with swords, knives, etc, compared to bullets, or weapons of 'mass destruction'?

Doesn't all that = technology?

 

[Texas]

Well thats pathetic :/ oyu can always build a flute or a harp or something to amuse you.

Actually its the fear of all this advanced technology that prevents world wars, governments imangine the concequences of a worldwide conflict that would be a massacre.

Country's dont have to fight one an other; people that considt a country can easily fight eachother. And thats for more devastating. In ancient times millions died in just a few battles, and all the known civilazation was the mediterranean basin. No need to travel overseas.

 

[Hibiki]

technology is not an evil thing

a sword doesnt fly around killing people and a gun doesnt shoot at everyone that walks by

its the people who use the weapons that make them evil having more or less technology wouldnt stop any violence because the very thing that makes people violent is each other

 

[SailorAlea]

Doesn't all that = technology?

It all depends what you consider the 'technology' to be taken away. ALL technology? You can consider farming techniques "technology."

To remove 100% of all technology, and I'm not talking only electronic, even houses, windows, wheels are a technology. You'd basically reduce people to living in small huts made of scavenged materials, or caves, who had to gather nuts/berries/etc with their hands, because a human with nothing on them, doesn't have much of a chance of killing a deer, bear, etc..

Removing ALL "technology" would set us back thousands of years. Even language is a sort of technology.

Technology:
1-1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge

However, I don't think that was the intention of this thread to hypothesize the retraction of ALL technology.

If 100% of technology were somehow removed, which would INCLUDE the knowledge that people possess, and prevented them from re-acquiring/discovering new technology, Humanity would most likely evolve into a better predator, assuming we survived at all. This would not be a "Peaceful" world.

If you remove SOME technology, namely electronics/gunpowder based technology, you leave swords and edged weapons. Removing edged tools would severely inhibit our ability to construct things, limitting the species as a whole.

Technology isn't the reason conflict exists in humanity. It's bad genetics, poor upbringing, constant hardship and the exploitation of the powerless by the powerful, which breed conflict. Not the existence of handguns and cd-roms.

 

[Deverz]

Hibiki is right

Guns don't kill people, People kill people

Technology is only evil if the person using it is using it for evil purposes

 

[Synth]

That's the problem with this thread, it's too vague of what kind of technology, instead it hints "all" technology.

Human beings could have been born with the ability to create technology, it being an instinct either genetically or naturally created.

Technology is creation, take away creation.. I believe we would have died.

 

[SailorAlea]

While I do agree, Hibiki/Deverz, that argument is obviously flawed.

If there's someone who is "totally evil," and wants to kill as many people as he/she can, they are obviously limited in potential by the most devastating weapon available.

If nuclear weapons aren't available, or any weapons of mass destruction, the most he/she can do is go on a killing rampage with a bazooka or some such weapon.

The more devastating a technology is that is available, the higher chance that many, many people can be annihilated by a single person. That's why we as a society, try to make nuclear weapons so hard to obtain.

Because we all know there's loads of people, who hate the Western world, who would die to get their hands on them.