Is there such a thing as too much technological advancement?

>>8442971
Too much for what? If you mean for humans being humans, you may see such in your lifetime.

>>8442971
You may see such in X years where X = X - 10

>>8442971
Depends on your goals m8. If your goals are human happiness I think that ship sailed about 10 000 years ago.

>>8442971
Little baby computers will look back on the human race like we do chimps.

No, because humanity only functions properly because it's always renovating and revolutionizing itself all the time. It might be prejudicial and harmful at times, you might want to direct this constant becoming towards something else or some other direction, but there is no alternative to this 'advancement' itself.

i have 4gb of ram... if you know what i mean ;)

File: download (5).jpg (12KB, 318x159px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 318x159px

yeah dude

>>8442971
Most if not all technological advancements are morally neutral, but have the potential to be used in both ethically positive and negative ways. If there's no inherent ethical dilemma, I don't see why there can be "too much" technological advancement.

>>8443018
Happiness was only possible back when we were still being viciously mauled by monstrous beasts on a regular basis?

>>8442971
For humans, yes, we'll be discarded soon enough

>>8442971
Man, I can't wait for Blade Runner 2. It's soon here, lets hope they don't botch it.

>>8444540
I won't watch it if there's a interracial couple in it

>>8444561
ok

>>8442971
Yes, we reached going to far with technology and not as a society. That's what matters. Humanity has to mature at the same rate

>>8442971
technologically advance yourself into my asshole

>>8444528

In a sense, yes

>>8444540

>lets hope they don't botch it.

It didn't need a sequel. They just want more Jew gold and as such they'll make it as bland and inoffensive as humanly possible.

File: unachan.jpg (289KB, 1200x1596px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1200x1596px

We've had too much technological advancement for hundreds of years now.

>>8445088
unabomber did nothing wrong

>>8442971
Yes, we should ask us more often if we should do something, not if we can.

>>8442971
>technological advancement
What even is that?

Imo this is a multifaceted problem and philosophy isn't really equipped to answer it beyond "sometimes possessions are oppressive", and that seems a little too nebulous. People are obviously referencing guys like Thoureau and Emerson. I've been going through some ancient texts and something popped up that was similar but I need to see my notes for what it was.

>>8445453
>>technological advancement
>What even is that?
Are you being retarded on purpose?

>>8442971
It's realtive. When technology is used as an excuse for laziness, then it's too much.

Let's say that a company has a service hotline open M-F 8-17. If you want support, you call during these hours and you almost always get a reply.

But if you have to e-mail them or leave a message on an answering machine, that is almost never read or listened to, then it's more technically advanced than having a human answering phone calls. But since less support is given, you could say that it's a case of too much technology.

>>8444528
You're thinking that safety and comfort = happiness, and danger and discomfort = unhappiness. That's an easy mistake.

I'm luddite as fuck. I think we should just stop now. The 1990s level of technology was more than enough.

>>8442971
no

File: 225468.jpg (19KB, 314x475px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 314x475px

Technology has already effectively ended the structure of "society" that has existed since the beginning of time

The next step is VR simulation

The logical endgame is the complete mastery of the human mind and biological functions, including death, pleasure, pain etc.

This will transform the human into something else entirely.

>>8445530
Not gonna happen.

We're approaching the limits of what we can physically or at leat economically accomplish, and eventually, soon, we'll run out of resources and slowly decay.

>>8445483
This is a kneejerk reaction to realising it's really quite hard to explain. You thought it was simple, cool, but actually it's complicated. Do not fear your ignorance. Accept it and move on.

It's really not as simple as "tools made more betterer" or something.

>>8445544
>It's really not as simple as "tools made more betterer" or something.

Yes it is.

>>8445535
>We're approaching the limits of what we can physically or at leat economically accomplish, and eventually, soon, we'll run out of resources and slowly decay.
I find this line of thought interesting. At most the conclusion should be that things will have to be different in the future (which is accepted anyway), but when it comes to really quite subtle challenges to ideology the response is that the sky is falling on our heads.

We have to use less energy and change to more abundant and/or more renewable resources materially but this isn't itself world ending. Much the same has happened before.

>>8445535

They've mastered endlessly renewable energy a long time ago.

Of course only the elite of society know about it, or have the means to use it.

The depopulation agenda may fully come into effect sooner or later. But make no mistake, the elite will still continue the research into immortality.

We are probably 100 years ahead technologically, it's just that it's hidden from the masses.

They are kept placated with their new smart phones, shiny logos, games consoles. etc

>>8445554
Wew lad

>>8445552
Tools have use
Improvement of tools presumably entails improvement of use (in quite a diffuse sense of the term, throw as much charitable interpretation at it as you are able)
For something to be useful it must contribute to the achievement of a goal (there is an implied telos)
What is the telos? Is that telos meaningful? (For example "it fulfills wants and needs" may be an answer but it raises even more (as in significantly more) questions and could be said to be practically meaningless)

A lot of "technological advancement" would appear to be underpinned by fashion as well. I think this falls outside of any straightforward idea of a goal. My opinion atm is something like the problem is in how we view things like technology and advancement, and many of the reasons why you'd think it's straightforward is ever present """""pure ideology""""".

>>8445587
>For something to be useful it must contribute to the achievement of a goal (there is an implied telos)
What is the telos? Is that telos meaningful? (For example "it fulfills wants and needs" may be an answer but it raises even more (as in significantly more) questions and could be said to be practically meaningless)

So you're basically saying my personal desire to live longer, healthier and happier is not meaningful in every sense you can think of and therefore the fullfilling of those needs via tools isn't either?

>>8445620
>to live longer, healthier and happier

the endgame of those objectives transforms man beyond a mortal. once this happens concepts such as "death, health and happiness" no longer exist.

>>8445631
Agree on the first two, but why should immortality have negative impact on my happiness? Also immortality isn't necessarily the end game, you are still free to choose when to die.

>>8442971
Yes. I think that the current level of advancement is enough. We should continue to work on medicine of course and transport but outside of those realms the invasiveness of technology on human interaction and humanity has reach a critical point.

>>8445620
>live healthier and happier
These should be the end goals of all humans but living longer + technological/scientific """"""progress"""""" =! happiness.

Once average life expectancy reaches 95 and people continue to live relatively healthy until their 90s then humanity should seriously consider showing some restraint in terms of technological advancement.

>>8445646
Humans have poor self restraint. Immortality/super long life expectancy is more power than any human should have.

>>8445653
>These should be the end goals of all humans but living longer + technological/scientific """"""progress"""""" =! happiness.
Then what does? How do you know? How do you measure happiness?

There are obvious examples where science and technology does _not_ increase your happiness, but there also are many where it does. Also, just because technological advancement (in the rather objective "more precise gears, faster connections etc." sense) doesn't ALWAYS improve your happiness, it doesn't mean that it never helps. Flat out denying that it's never meaningful and hence can't exist in the "telos" (>>8445587) sense seems ignorant.

>Once average life expectancy reaches 95 and people continue to live relatively healthy until their 90s then humanity should seriously consider showing some restraint in terms of technological advancement.
Why? Why not 100? Why not 105? What is your point?

>Humans have poor self restraint. Immortality/super long life expectancy is more power than any human should have.
Dumb 19th century humble-thyself wank. You have no idea how immortal humans will behave or if they'll be happier or not.

>>8445571
its not that far fetched of an idea tbqh senpai