ZOMBIE FORUMS

Looking around us, there's so many things that are around today that we didn't have, even ten...twenty years ago. Technological advances that have turned Science Fiction into Science Fact. But my question is: are we really better off?

I've heard of some amazing things. Suspending taboos for the moment, looking at stem cell research humans are given the chance to practically become starfish. We can regenerate what we loose. Lost your eye sight? Inject some stem cells and the eye will eventually be fixed. Need some sort of transplant that no one can donor for? Take some stem cells and grow a new organ. End up like Christopher Reeves? Use some stem cells on your spine. Not only this, but apparently soon with just a few drops of blood we will be able to predict all diseases we will inevitably suffer from in life so that we may fight them, as well as all the diseases we won't have to worry about. Thus we do not have to take unnecessary precautions. Amazing, isn't it? Sounds too good to be true to me. I don't claim to know everything about this. Hell, I don't claim to know anything about it. This is all based out of advertisements I've heard and articles I've read. Because...we all know that the media never lies...

At any rate.

Is this really better for us? Are all these things, the gadgets, the gizmos, are all of them really making our lives any better? And I'm speaking of quality of life here, not longevity. Will all the advances really end up making us happy? Or will we end up slaves to the institution we're setting ourselves up in?

There were years, centuries, hell...Millennia that we lived without having to hurry to a doctor for every little ache and pain. If we didn't feel good, we sucked it up, lifted our chin, and continued on with life because there wasn't anything else that could be done. Yes, people died. But is that any better than the world we're living in now? Where no one enjoys what they eat anymore because they're too worried about whether their salad has too many calories or if the croutons are too much carbs, and oh no, how many points was it again because I wouldn't want to go over my limit! Prozac, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Serzone, Buspar, Desyrel, Remeron, Edronax, and other names of pills that I don't feel like remembering are handed out like candy when you go to the doctor's office. It's no longer about trying to work out your problems and realizing what made you feel bad, because obviously it's just a chemical imbalance and here, take your Soma. It'll make you feel better. If you're child shows a spark of creativity and curiosity about the world, hot damn, give 'em some Ritalin because we can't be having any of that. Because we all know children were never meant to squirm around or ask annoying questions or be easily distracted. No, sit and stare like zombies. It's easier for the parents that way. They don't even have to try anymore.

Is any of this really making our lives any better? A good friend told me once that he thought birds didn't appreciate how they could fly because they've never had to know life without it. If human beings get to the point where there are no longer any consequences for our actions then how can we appreciate the beauty of our life? Accidents happen, and if you could just erase them, make it so that they never happened in the first place, how could we ever learn from them?

If we're analyzed from birth to be told that we have a 84.37% chance of being susceptible to pneumonia, how will we ever enjoy the beauty of rain when we're so deathly afraid of the statistics that we might die? Human beings aren't statistics, and part of living is the fact that there is a very large chance we will die. Tomorrow I might pull out because of a green light, then die when someone else runs a red light. I can't control that, it's out of my hands. So why be afraid?

Why are we so damn afraid?

While I love my computer, and subsequently the Internet as well, but I question how much good it does for society. In a way, humans remind me of wolves. Social creatures that thrive with company, but when left without a pack tend to go insane. Despite that we play at talking to people and being social online, most of the same people (and I am definitely lumping myself in this category here) have no ability to talk or function properly in the outside world with other tangible human beings. It's almost as if the Internet is hindering us more than it is helping us to grow and learn. If the Internet were to suddenly die today, forcing all us Internet junkies to push ourselves blinking into the brightness of daylight, would we in the long run really be harmed by that? Or would we be happy that we must in the end learn how to live with our own species?

I know this is a very long rant, and I apologize both for the length and the sarcastic biasness in it. My view point is fairly obvious, and I'd really like to know what other people think on the subject, especially some pro-technology people. Also, if the topics been overdone, sorry again. I didn't see any threads on it so I didn't think it would hurt anything.

I so desperately want to reply to this with a long and thoughtful essay, but am both lazy and tired. I'll sum up my views quickly.

I agree wholeheartedly, however, I believe in the ability of both humans and society to recognize this trend and reverse it if we go too far. I believe, as I believe with all things that there is a breaking point, so to speak, after which people wake up and begin to think about the negative concequences of their actions or the actions of others. This breaking point comes far sooner when concequences affect oneself directly.

That's why you wait until morning and read it fresh. A forum will always be there, you don't have to say everything you want right then and there.

>_>
<_<
you black

I have no desire to make a fool of myself in public.

Because of said inventions, we are living longer than any of our ancestors. Also, even knowing I come from a family predispositioned to liver problems and other such issues, I'm not living my life in fear knowing I could die of liver failure at a young age. Life isn't worth living if you're gonna be a pussy about it, no matter what you are told. If Clay were around, I'd ask him to bash the statistics, as it's fun to watch him do that. Living your life around a piece of paper is stupid.

Let me guess -- You watched Gattica tonight, right?

That movie is all about how excessive genetic engineering/predicting has caused society to lose a certain 'spark' and caused us to rely on probabilities more than realities.

At one point the CEO of The Company was basically asked "What do you do if someone exceeds their potential?" His response was thus: "Nobody exceeds their potential. That simply means that we underestimated them."

The main character has a 98% chance of dying of a congential heart defect by the age of 20. At the age of 30 he's the best of the best of the best and gets to go to jupiter. Only nobody knows it's him.

==========

And to answer your question more directly:

You ask "What if the internet died and we all had to crawl into the sunlight?"

I ask "What if there was a massive toilet paper shortage coupled with an unknown sewage problem that caused indoor plumbing to fail on a global scale, and you had to get your water from a central outlet located every few blocks, and your 'waste disposal' was a hole in the ground, also every few blocks. And did I mention there's no toilet paper?"

It's true that longevity is not the end-all of quality of life, but other technological advances make up for the percieved 'bads.'

You say "Prozak" I say "Birth Control!" You say "Stem Cells reverse all ills -- no consequences to accidents" I say "Died of heart failure at age 20; Died in childbirth at age 30 -- the 14th one, 5 children survived to the age of 12"

For every minus, there's at least one plus.

now, having read it and gotten past my Vageroth bashing...

The crux of the problem I think though is not "should we do it?" but "should we do it for EVERYONE?" I think chances are that for every person who ABSOULUTELY needs the treatments offered, there are maybe 2-3* more who are getting the same. For many they wouldn't live at all without these things. Others though are probably wanting to take advantage so they can squeese as much out of their life as possible. And isn't it natural instinct to want to survive as long as possible? You are always going to want more from life, and things will come along to limit much of what happens.

Another point could be that drug companies and healthcare in general couldn't survive if they only had those who NEEDED the treatment...
and could afford it...but the poverty issue is for another day.

*this number multiplies greatly for those taking happy-pills. There ARE people who need to suck it up here.

Hindsight is 20-20. When I made my first post I thought that maybe it was getting too long, so I stopped myself from launching into the commentary about things I consider to be good points in technology. I'd like to make it clear that I do appreciate much of what our advances have aided for us. I was just wondering just how much quality of life has really improved with it.

Everyone has their weakness. The indulgences we like to rely on. The things that were created in this world that we hold no contempt for at all and are very glad to have around. No doubt someone on Prozac would be glad for it. I may not see the point of it, but they're happy on it. They see a point in it. And I happen to greatly appreciate birth control pills. Hell, in a country that seems to push every kind of pill imaginable is it any wonder why it's the one that's for birth control that is the only one that's elevated to being called "The Pill"? That doesn't necessarily mean that it makes life better. The person on Prozac could simply looking for a method to explain why they're depressed without having to actually try and see if there's a way to fix the situation without chemical help. The person on the birth control pills could only be using them simply as an excuse to go have sex without consequences the way many people will get drunk or high to drown out what they really feel. I'm not saying this is the case all the time. As Herbal Enema pointed out: there is a balance in things.

However, I have to say, so what if the sewers were destroyed? If there were no more toilet paper? We lived for centuries without them. Have we become so dependent that if we're not on a porcelain throne with Double sided extra-soft Quilted Northern that it becomes hell to perform bodily functions?

This is probably the only reason why I never completely bash all the advancements we've made. The few people who really need it. Like the person who was mugged and cut up so bad they were completely disfigured ending up on a plastic surgeon's table when they hit the hospital as opposed to people saying "you know, I think my nose is just slightly oversized. I'm going to go get it fixed! And while I'm there I'll get them to lipo some of the nonexistent fat from my stomach."

But in face of people abusing things so badly, what can we do? Is it fair to let it be so overrun that in the end only those with massive amounts of money to waste can have the perks of life or just remove it completely saying "if the people who need it can't have it, then no one can." ?

Gah! Read some history dammit!
Life expectancy was fubared before the development of sewerage systems for large cities. Before London redesigned its sewer system, so as to dump its sewerage out in the mouth of the Thames in the 1860s, nearly every summer the city would have a cholera epidemic.
Why? Because the sewer system was just pumping the sewerage back into the drinking water.

As for the rest... maybe some other time.

...well...yea.

Think about it. Every time you have to use the bathroom, you will have to go outside. So will everyone else in your family.

Ok, maybe not so huge...

Now think about New York city doing that.

Yea, the magical destruction of all sewers wouldn't be pretty, and certainly would change the face of our country.

Well, that's the thing. The Constitution outlines the right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. Life is what comes out of this for those in need of whatever procedure, The pursuit of happiness is for those that can have the luxury for it.

...of course, we certainly can insult, ridicule, or do whatever to them because of what they do in our own pursuit of happiness :P

Because fear makes you buy things.

Re: the rest of it. Would you rather be Amish?

OH MY GOD BARON I <buttsex3 YOU SO MUCH.

No, seriously, you rock. buttsex

Very good point, I'd continue on it, but that's leaning into my jaded political views.

And yes, I would rather be Amish. Well, if there's a version of Amish that doesn't also involve religion.

They're called technophiles, and they lives in caves in southern California trying to decide if rocks are edible and contemplating whether or not it's safe to go running about in the wild with no clothes on.

Before you say "rock on", remember that we wear clothing as protection from the elements and not just for modesty. And that none of them shave. Ever.

Fixed? I mean, they could very well be called technophiles for the irony of it, I guess...

And my only stance on this is to say that yes, this society is better off mainly for one reason. Time. For all the problems in this society, we have the time and ability to choose what we want to do, be it a choice between running or driving to work, or to be an electrician or a pilot. We have freedom, now, that a life lived in earlier days would not have afforded us.

Also Luddites, if memory serves.


And another benefit that no one's mentioned yet: population. The earth now supports in excess of six billion human beings. If you'll look at a population of the world over time chart, even one covering a mere half century, you'll notice that there's been a huge population explosion in the last [century? three centuries? something like that]. Anyways, modern (as in, since the 1500s) technology, has most likely brought about this population boom, mostly through decreasing the death rate, rather than increasing the birth rate. Now, I think "better off," being reasonably interpreted as meaning "not dead," (though this may indeed be subjective on an indiviual basis, I think it can be justifiably applied to most people), we can surmise that humans are better off for the presence of technology.

*Image taken from [url=Tiger Touch]http://www.tigertouch.org/erata3.html[/url]

This is counteracted by the fact that, in most civilized countries (term used as usually intended, don't nitpick me), birth rates and death rates are approaching unity. In Italy, right now, more people are dying than are being born, and many other countries in Europe are getting close to this. Granted, this doesn't overcome the population ratios in other countries, but as civilization spreads, eventually Earth will reach a point where the population won't grow anymore. And since civilized countries are usually the ones with technology...

When I said "better off" i meant in the "quality of life" sense. If I had meant it as "not dead" there wouldn't be any argument at all.

"Quality of life" is rather vague you know. Life expectancy is generally reasonably good as a measure of "quality of life" because of the fact that increased life expectancy generally means that people have more time available to them, as Jasper mention, to do what they wish. People don't have to spend 16 hours a day working just to survive. Leisure time has increased significantly so people are now able to learn new things, watch the telly, or read a book in their spare time.

Ah, that's another one, education levels. In the '50s South Korea was just as impoverised as the rest of Asia and with an education and literacy rate to match. From about the '70s, I believe, the South Koreans threw shitloads of cash at education, health, capital works and suchforth, becomes part of the East Asian Tiger phenomenon of '80s and '90s, and is now compareable to the US in terms of life expectancy, education and GDP per capita.

Which leads to my final rambling point, GDP per capita might only measure the average wealth of a nation, however if it's increasing while the population is also increasing, then obviously people have more money to spend. They can do more things that they want to do, rather than just the basic survival things they need. Also a reasonable indication of a probably increase in "quality of life".

Yeah... I need to work on my debating skills....