☕✍️ David Antoine Interesting quote found on quitfacebook... "Our brains are no match for our technology". But our technology is a direct result of our brains. So, put it very simply, is it matching when we do good things with it and not matching when we do bad things? Any thoughts?
😾 Oskar Technology is a form of art, formalized after N iterations. I doubt we can judge technology only in terms of STEM (utility). Morality is disconnected from technology per se as it's only a result of using it. Therefore, I would extend your argument into question whether human is inherently evil because he finds a way to misuse technology?
☕✍️ David Antoine I wouldn't say we are evil _because_ of that. There are probably (anthropological) predispositions for violence but I think it's overshadowed by environmental factors, same as for predispositions to diseases. Those factors include culture, education, etc. And the resulting state and sanity of a given human society. Can we organize ourselves to the point of not giving up in "primordial" behavior, leading us to misuse technology? Maybe that will require a new evolutionary step.
😾 Oskar I was sharing a view that environmental factors are deciding, but after reading (and thinking about) on religion theory and psychoanalysis (with focus on trauma) I cannot shake off the feeling that violence is just inherit to human. Resulting culture, education and law are secondary mechanisms for human to advance his tribe, but those are utilitarian in nature, evolutionary one may say. I think that no, we cannot organize above some threshold. It's an original sin in a way.
☕✍️ David Antoine Then you are much more savy than me on the subject. But I do hope those secondary mechanisms (maybe even religion to some extent) will advance us to a point where we can reach that threshold, wherever it is. Provided at some point, that some evolutionary step or branching could facilitate it. Unfortunatetly big genome mutations are much more rare in complex forms of life, unless there are put through extreme environmental stress... So, maybe we are in for a bad future.
Login or register to reply
😾 Oskar Yes, they do advance use, as they did already. Lets even use modern humanism as a marker, introducing common concept of compassion/love across groups. You mention mutations in complex life, this is exactly the threshold I have in mind. Religious person would define it as 'Human cannot become God' (ultimate Good), but from evolutionary perspective, you could form it as small capability of mutations for already developed life. Maybe some unknown nature law could kick us there?
☕✍️ David Antoine Maybe. Even through extreme stress and if an unknown law already _is_, "safely" mutating homeobox genes (archituctural genes) then passing trough natural selection is nearly impossible for us, or it would end up in horrendous results (like with radiation or chemicals). Small capability mutations will occur, long, long term. Enough to kick us there? I don't know. Or you can argue the utilization of tech to manipulate and "improve" genes. And circle back on its bad utilization.