Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Our success is killing us

Our success is killing us

The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.

McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.

The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.

In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war.” Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.

The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.

We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.

What do you think about this serious matter?

I think stem cell research should proceed apace. The only way we can cope with the genie is to study it, it's not going to go back into the bottle. The power of stem cells will have to be harnessed sooner or later, I'd prefer to be in the country where the knowledge is obtained rather than in a "have-not" situation. The potential of stem cells to impact major diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's is vast, it should not be hobbled by fear-mongering wusses who can't see past their own mortality.

The aims of technology vary. In the case noted regarding the extension of longevity in men and women the aim of much of technology is to cure our ills with the resulting increase is noted in increased longevity. Technology is blind and the results can vary widely.

Is increasing human longevity a good or is it a bad. Certainly most people want to live longer so most people consider it to be a good. What might be the bad aspects of an ever increasing human longevity?

1) Overpopulation
2) Lingering death
3) Human health resources directed toward the aged rather than the children
4) The lack of financial resources in old age leading to lack of dignity in old age
5) Recognition by the aged of their burden to their loved ones
6) How do we handle increasing longevity when old folks do not die thus making room for new people?
7) Will this lead to a war between the generations?

Would I be correct in assuming you are rather young coberst?

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

[quote= Mike Kremer]
So, you are a learner of disinterested knowledge are you?
Well, if as you say your andrenaline rises in anticipation of your voyage of discovery
All I can suggest is that this is because in truth you have been subjecting your brain over the years to a lot of disinteresting knowledge.
Disinteresting knowledge tires the brain. It see's a lot but grasps little.

Get rid of your written "gobbledegook" and start to learn something that your virtual brain is really interested in. Forget about your autodidactic truth that you say evolves in a biological fashion, and step into the real world.

So, coberst, I was wrong in visualising you as the rabid leader of a flock of Gen Z-ers intent on ridding the world of mouldy oldies---but what on earth is 'disinterested learning'? May I suggest that meaningful learning is impossible without interest?

In general I read history, science, and light philosophy (I generally do not try to read original stuff but read from a secondary source).

For example I have been trying to understand the meaning of 'understand' for a long time and I think I now have an answer. I will stop the effort but I constantly am prepared to take it up again should something reignite my doubt as to my answer or that I find something that will add to my understanding.

I have been working at understanding "Philosophy in the Flesh" for months and I now feel that I understand the fundamentals of the theory but I will continue to work on 'rounding out' my understanding. I think that this theory defined in this book will become the first paradigm for cognitive science. It is a revolutionary theory that I recommend at every opportunity.

I also have read a bit of Dewey. I like Dewey especially his “Habits and Will” which focuses on the importance of habit in our character development and in our development of an intellectual life. I got started in the matter of understanding while studying empathy. Empathy is a process of imagination constructing something that will help a person to understand another person.

For example one might try to construct in imagination something about the life of a terrorist so as to understand why that person could do such a thing. The caring is associated with the desire to understand because in understanding ones enemy can best combat that enemy.

The terrorist need not be the object of caring. The caring is associated with combating the terrorist. I care enough about fighting terrorism that I will make the effort of empathy.
I do not mean caring to be necessarily or even occasionally associated with caring for the well being of some one. I use the word care to mean that I care about understanding this domain of knowledge.

I am a great fan of CT (Critical Thinking) and the effort to introduce this subject into our schools and colleges. CT is the fundamental requirement for self-actuated learning, I think.
I think that understanding and disinterested knowledge are the two sides of the same coin. I am sure that people on occasion bother to understand a domain of knowledge for reasons other than a desire to understand. Every specialist probably learns to understand his or her specialty and they have been led to do it because it is an instrument serving a career purpose.

I think that a person strives to learn disinterested knowledge because they wish to understand that domain of knowledge. I do not think many people bother to study something that does not have a valuable payoff in money unless it is to understand. I would not learn to “do” calculus except that it is necessary to being an engineer. I would, however, study calculus if it helped me understand mathematics. Every engineer, when asked if s/he could “do” math would respond yes. Every engineer if asked do you understand math would answer quickly, are you kidding me.
Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term 'disinterested knowledge' as similar to 'pure research', as compared to 'applied research'. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to 'see' and then to 'grasp' through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.
We often use the metaphors of 'seeing' for knowing and 'grasping' for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the 'truth', is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the 'truth' discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.