21.century

[H.r.E.]

how do you see it ? do you really need to be available 24hrs. a day or be able to surf in the internet all day via your blackberry? doesnt a "backward"-life provide you with a greater happiness than the hasteful modern times? will it not be way better in 40 years with no more oil available? no more cars , no more planes , no more mikrochips , no more plastic and stuff , of course it will be harder to live than before but people managed to survive and have a acceptable life way before there was the invention of oil-made products and all this , whats your opinion guys? do we really need a new handy all half year? (just as an example)

[Civil1z@tion]

To your basic question (in essence: "doesn't modern life suck?") my answer is no. You make a few bad assumptions here. First, that nothing will be able to replace oil. There are already numerous replacements that either currently exist or are being developed so running out of oil is not going to stop modern life. Second, I don't think that modern life sucks. It pushes you to always challenge yourself and the technology we have allows us to interact with all types of ideas and people from all different backgrounds. If we lost modern technology we'd all be reduced to being parochial hicks not knowing or caring about anything more than 20 miles from where we lived. I personally find modern life incredibly fulfilling because of the far wider range of possibilities people have. So no, things won't be better if we lose modern technology. They may be easier in a mental way (though not a physical way) but I find mental exertion far more fulfilling than the physical exertion that would be demanded in a more traditional life style. And if you can't find fulfilling mental exertion in the modern world you clearly aren't trying hard enough.

[Helm]

Well there are alternatives to oil. By the end of the century fossil fuel burning should hopefully be a thing of the past.

[SigniferOne]

Only cars run on oil. Modern civilization is run by nuclear power.

The only way to fix the ills of the modern day is to make conscious decisions, and fix those problems in your own personal life, as well as those of acquaintances closest to you. You cannot force the whole civilization to go against its grain. But there is nothing that says the ultimate realization of what you say cannot be accomplished by people judiciously making choices in their life that will tend to greater personal fulfillment.

[Helm]

Fuel only makes cars run. Modern civilization is run by nuclear power.

You haven't heard of coal/gas/oil powerstations?

Nuclear power isn't particularly popular as no-one wants a nuclear powerstation built in their backyard, or want the waste disposed off in their backyards either. But otherwise it would be a good alternative. As it is renewables are the way to go.

[Civil1z@tion]

You haven't heard of coal/gas powerstations?

Yea nuclear power in a minority of power generation at the current time (and with emphasis being placed on wind and solar renewable energy is likely to stay that way).

[SigniferOne]

I have. And they stand only because of environmental sensitivity. In regards to actual power to pack a punch, as well as efficiency to extract energy from the smallest portion of matter, nuclear stations leave all other methods of energy far in the dust. Thus if even every other form of energy disappears we'll simply transition everything to nuclear power.

[Tankbuster]

I have. And they stand only because of environmental sensitivity. In regards to actual power to pack a punch, as well as efficiency to extract energy from the smallest portion of matter, nuclear stations leave all other methods of energy far in the dust. Thus if even every other form of energy disappears we'll simply transition everything to nuclear power.

And nuclear stations are still improving and being perfected by engineers.
Reactors like the AP1000 are safer, more productive and produce less nuclear waste than current designs. These machines will be operational within years.
Not to mention upcoming projects like the new Generation IV Reactors. Still largely theoretical, but they will undeniably be a major improvement as well; many of these advances are not more than decades anyway.

It's probably not necessary to transition to green energy just quite yet. New nuclear energy will be even cleaner, safer and cheape than it is now.

[Helm]

Nuclear power would be a good solution in theory, if it wasn't for the fact they're massively unpopular with both the general public and the environmentalists.

[Morkonan]

how do you see it ? do you really need to be available 24hrs. a day or be able to surf in the internet all day via your blackberry? doesnt a "backward"-life provide you with a greater happiness than the hasteful modern times? will it not be way better in 40 years with no more oil available? no more cars , no more planes , no more mikrochips , no more plastic and stuff , of course it will be harder to live than before but people managed to survive and have a acceptable life way before there was the invention of oil-made products and all this , whats your opinion guys? do we really need a new handy all half year? (just as an example)

I am not of the opinion that the Luddites had it right.

What is important is not the technology itself but how you incorporate that technology into your life and, in the larger sense, into society.

It is also completely impossible for us to shake off the trappings of industrialized, modern society or even all technology and exist at a level any greater than that of animals. Billions of people would die in a relatively short time from starvation and environmental exposure. Death rates would skyrocket, life expectancy would substantially decrease and infant mortality would rise amongst surviving populations.

How far do we go? Do we refuse to domesticate cattle and use oxcarts? Do we decide that iron is unnecessary and wasteful? Do we then believe that crop irrigation is complicating our lives because we argue over water rights? Is woven or manufactured clothing too much for a society to bear?

Only a very few, very isolated and very small number of human beings survive in a more or less pristine, naturally evolved system without the advantages of technology any more advanced than basic physical principles like the lever. I would not wish to join them. I enjoy electricity, nuclear power and all of their fore-bearers and progeny too much to give them up.

Life without toilet paper... would you like it?

[Helm]

We could go back to a middle ages lifestyle but it would mean shedding the odd billion people who wouldn't have survived without modern technology and being prepared to have more children and die younger.

[Morkonan]

We could go back to a middle ages lifestyle but it would mean shedding the odd billion people who wouldn't have survived without modern technology and being prepared to have more children and die younger.

The odd plague, here and there, and other uncomfortable things like freezing to death would seem to make that state of existence less than desirable.

[Helm]

We wouldn't necessarily freeze to death have you heard of fire? And I suppose we would still have anti-biotics, better sanitation and general hygene as well so that would help. We would pretty much be akin to the Roman Empire if you removed all our post industrial technology.

[Morkonan]

We wouldn't necessarily freeze to death have you heard of fire?

Fire is nice. But, that requires wood or coal and that requires chopping down trees and, at the minimum for practicality, at least requires iron which requires... yadda yadda yadda.. There's a lot of technology required to provide sustainable hearths for large populations. For a few people,here and there, they could survive. But, look at England. Where did all their forests go? Land clearance for crops and a healthy production of firewood and wood-coal. That resulted in a sustainable population which only progressed due to advances in technology and knowledge.

And I suppose we would still have anti-biotics.

Uh.. no. At least, not refined antibiotics IMO. I suppose you could grab some sphagnum moss and slap it on top of a wound, hoping that its antibiotic constituents would do the job. But, the high rate of gangrene present in the Middle Ages would still be evident without refined antibiotics. To make those, you have to have advanced technology. Plus, "antibiotic" is a pretty broad word. Literally, it kills biotic organisms or introduces a medium inhospitable to sustained growth, typically bacteria. But, it's not too far removed from poison... Establishing the difference is something for which advanced techniques and technology is needed.

I'm not saying existing like that is impossible. On the contrary, we know it is. But, it's not particularly desirable compared to our existence today. We're talking about an existence that is basically hand-to-mouth for a great deal of the population, where reading is practically unknown and anything beyond simple addition and subtraction is a practical mystery. The lever, wheel and certain principles of fluids are known and used but nothing beyond those principles are remotely understood by most of the population. Education is nonexistent and virtually nothing is known beyond the borders that one can see on a clear day.

The reason that I list those is not simply due to historical conditions. There are practical considerations as well and a great many have to do with the application of certain technologies.

I think that learning to deal with our current technology and how it effects our society is infinitely preferable to de-evolving into a society that eschews technology in favor of a more primitive existence. There is nothing, in my opinion, desirable about the "Noble Savage" or the Luddite view.

[Helm]

Fire is nice. But, that requires wood or coal and that requires chopping down trees and, at the minimum for practicality, at least requires iron which requires... yadda yadda yadda.. There's a lot of technology required to provide sustainable hearths for large populations. For a few people,here and there, they could survive. But, look at England. Where did all their forests go? Land clearance for crops and a healthy production of firewood and wood-coal. That resulted in a sustainable population which only progressed due to advances in technology and knowledge.

You could always plant more trees if there's a shortage of wood to burn, what you have there is a renewable resource.

Uh.. no. At least, not refined antibiotics IMO. I suppose you could grab some sphagnum moss and slap it on top of a wound, hoping that its antibiotic constituents would do the job. But, the high rate of gangrene present in the Middle Ages would still be evident without refined antibiotics. To make those, you have to have advanced technology. Plus, "antibiotic" is a pretty broad word. Literally, it kills biotic organisms or introduces a medium inhospitable to sustained growth, typically bacteria. But, it's not too far removed from poison... Establishing the difference is something for which advanced techniques and technology is needed.

If you went back in time to the middle ages and gave an apothecary all the information we have on anti-biotics they would probably be able to knock something up using the tools they had to hand. As long as you have a working knowledge of chemistry you could get by without much in the way of modern technology.

I'm not saying existing like that is impossible. On the contrary, we know it is. But, it's not particularly desirable compared to our existence today. We're talking about an existence that is basically hand-to-mouth for a great deal of the population, where reading is practically unknown and anything beyond simple addition and subtraction is a practical mystery. The lever, wheel and certain principles of fluids are known and used but nothing beyond those principles are remotely understood by most of the population. Education is nonexistent and virtually nothing is known beyond the borders that one can see on a clear day.

As long as people continue to teach their children how to read and write that knowledge should be passed down to future generations, we wouldn't necessarily revert back to to the Dark Ages.

I think that learning to deal with our current technology and how it effects our society is infinitely preferable to de-evolving into a society that eschews technology in favor of a more primitive existence. There is nothing, in my opinion, desirable about the "Noble Savage" or the Luddite view.

On a small scale a low technology subsistance lifestyle may not be all that bad providing nothing untoward happens. But the negatives will outweigh all the posistive aspects I should think, why else did we develop the technology we have in the first place if it wasn't an improvement?

[royfang]

how do you see it ? do you really need to be available 24hrs. a day or be able to surf in the internet all day via your blackberry? doesnt a "backward"-life provide you with a greater happiness than the hasteful modern times? will it not be way better in 40 years with no more oil available? no more cars , no more planes , no more mikrochips , no more plastic and stuff , of course it will be harder to live than before but people managed to survive and have a acceptable life way before there was the invention of oil-made products and all this , whats your opinion guys? do we really need a new handy all half year? (just as an example)

How backward do you mean? The Cavemen period?
Sure no more cars, buses, motorbikes and planes etc. might reduce pollution but do you want to spend days or weeks just to travel to other parts of your country? months and maybe years to travel to other countries?

As long as people continue to teach their children how to read and write that knowledge should be passed down to future generations, we wouldn't necessarily revert back to to the Dark Ages.

And wouldn't that knowledge be limited only to what the parents know?

[Helm]

And wouldn't that knowledge be limited only to what the parents know?

As long as your parents can still read and write. But you don't necessarily need high technology to run a school, chalk on a blackboard would work well enough.

[H.r.E.]

How backward do you mean? The Cavemen period?
Sure no more cars, buses, motorbikes and planes etc. might reduce pollution but do you want to spend days or weeks just to travel to other parts of your country? months and maybe years to travel to other countries?



And wouldn't that knowledge be limited only to what the parents know?

wouldnt harm me that much , i think i mean backward like before the industrialisation when most people made their food at home with pigs and stuffs and making their own clothes out of wool (example)

but maybe its just my mentally that wants back past so badly , cuz im generally nostalgic about the "good `ol times" in any kind of meaning , historical as well as looking at my own life (or maybe its just the fact that my boredom and reading of philsophy makes me crazy)

[Tiberius Tosi]

We will never run out of oil, we will merely run out of cheap oil. There is more oil than we could ever need, the problem is it is hard and expensive to get to and cannot be pumped out at the rates oil fields in the Middle East and Texas can be for example.

Unfortunately I do not buy in to the whole "our lives will get easier" thing that most people do about the future. In the 60's they predicted that we would be having 4 hour work days from home and work maybe 4 days a week. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. The majority of people have gone from working 8 hours in a factory or a season on the farm (which is by no means an easy job) to a 11-14 hour workday in an officer (dependent on how high up they are and how hard they work) that takes a much worse mental toll on a person. Also, with advances in cell phones many people continue to work after they get home from a 12 hour workday by making calls, etc. This trend will only continue, and we will never get down to a 4 hour work day as predicted. But likewise, we will not simply run out of jobs like some other people predict either. There will always be demand in one sector that will continue to grow as another dies. Just as we shifted from an agricultural to a industrial to a service and financial workforce, so to will we shift to whatever is next (if there is even another shift, things could easily go on as they do now).

The only thing certain about the future is only 1/10 people in America will make as much as their parents, and this generation in America and Europe will be the first generation to actually get poorer. Of course this is what "experts" predict, and as I mentioned in the previous paragraph they also predicted the 4 hours workday, so they could very well be completely wrong.