Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Where I am coming from is that as we innovate, we consume less and find better functionality as humans.
|
The problem inherent with this is that humans are flawed, and most humans are destructive rather than creative.
In the end, do we really consume less as we innovate? To use an example: Lets say that we use 1 acre of trees to build one log cabin. After innovations in concrete and steel, we use less wood (say 1/2 acre) but in using other materials, we're not using less overall, just different amounts.
Now, since wood was at a premium (since there were acres of trees cut down for cabins) and we're using less wood, the New Improved cabins are cheaper. Since they are cheaper, more people can afford to buy them. So now, instead of having 10 all wood cabins (using 10 acres of woods) we have 20 hybrid cabins (using 10 acres of woods + additional materials like concrete and steel).
Do you get what I'm trying to say here? Sometimes innovations (nuclear physics become nuclear power *and* nuclear bombs) set us further back in many ways. Can it be a case of two steps forward and one step back?
Cat alluded to this in one of her posts...with the internet, if we all used it solely for information dissemination...what it was created for....that's not a bad thing. Unless we're disseminating terrorist plans worldwide. But since we don't use it solely for that purpose, are we better off as a society?
There's a part of the movie Contact, where Palmer Joss is being interviewed on Larry King, and he posits that question.
Quote:
|
We shop at home, we surf the net... and we feel emptier and lonelier and more cut off from each other than at any other time in human history...
|
Are we really better off socially? Emailing mom instead of calling, or better still, going to visit? Are we better off moving far far away from family? Some that don't get along with their families might say "hell yeah!" but I mean generally, as a society.