View Single Post
Old June 12 2012, 07:32 AM   #128
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: What are your top 5 technologies of the next 15 years?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
RAMA wrote: View Post
Sorry, how is that a non-sequitur...I have given you 3 separate ways such things can be funded and developed, 2 of them are relatively new and innovative.
Air guitar picks for smartphones? You REALLY don't see how this has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about?

Really, you strike me as the kind of person who is easily impressed by technology -- or even just articles about technology -- and hold up ANY example of technological progress to be evidence of something wonderful right over the horizon. Let's not fail to take Murphy's Law into account, or Ted Sturgeons famous and relatively accurate prophecy that 99% of everything is shit.

It's not just the existence of the technology I'm talking about, it is the new way it is proliferating...
The leap from iPod guitar picks to transhumanist/singularity technology is a pretty huge one; they're not in the same ballpark. Not in the same league. Hell, they're not even the same sport.

The conditions in Africa in many cases are not ideal, yet the market penetration of smartphones for example has found a way to develop...and make money for the companies as well as improve GDP, and bring people out of poverty.
Let me be perfectly clear on this lest you continue to erroneously make this point: Smartphones do not bring people out of poverty.

Technology has always proliferated across culture lines, as various groups and societies pick and choose products from their neighbors they find desirable. The social/political/economic progress DOES NOT proliferate the same way, and it does not follow technological distribution; rather, technological advances tend to concentrate in areas where more and more progress is being made.

Real world historical example: American Plains Indians no longer live in tents, no longer hunt game using bows and arrows and no longer construct their clothing exclusively out of furs and hides. They adopted horses, then firearms, then western-style architecture, and now a hundred years later they have houses, cars, electricity, satellite radio, and yes, even smartphones. Yet they have been, and are today, a highly impoverished society in almost every way that a society can be impoverished: they are extremely weak politically, economically, sociologically and militarily. An even more extreme example is the Choctaw Nation (my grandmother's ancestors) who adopted European technology and styles as early as the late 18th century and attempted a crash course of modernization. They fared a hell of a lot better than the plains Indians, not because the technology did them a huge benefit (it didn't, by the way) but because of the political and social transformation that preceded it: they made a social investment in adopting new ways and attempting (unsuccessfully) to become part of a new world order.

The Dakotas remained in poverty because they were unable or unwilling to fully modernize and make meaningful social progress. The Choctaw remained in poverty because they were prohibited from making progress by their rivals (to wit, the United States), but despite this resistance were still able to make some progress. In neither case was the technology all that helpful.

Smartphones are convenient and useful, but you cannot voice dial your way out of poverty for the same reasons you can't shoot your way out of it with assault rifles and rockets. Poverty is caused by a lack of resources, tangible and intangible; technology is not a resource in and of itself, THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE technology is. IOW: When startup companies in the Congo start producing their own smartphones and computers and software applications without outside help, THEN we've got something to talk about.

I see no reason to expect the needed water purification system to not succeed in this way
Succeed WHAT way? It won't be owned or developed by the people who need it most, and they won't benefit from it beyond immediate material needs. In the end, it would be no different if Coca Cola SOLD them all the water they needed.
You're just not getting it, smart phones are an example of exponential technology (size, power, speed etc)...providing dematerialized services once impossible out of numerous other hardware based, old industrialized technologies, even in some cases a few years ago. It has demonstrably changed the world already and I have provided both technical experts and statistical evidence to prove it (your claims however have not).

We were discussing coca cola and corporations, and you were suggesting that they are slow to innovate with new technologies, I was telling you not only are THEY innovating more, but there are at least two other ways such progress is occurring, something which has not been available till recently. See how that DOES have everything to do with what we were talking about?

Your arguments are mainly opinion not based on modern reality, and also appear to be based on predispositions from your life experiences from whatever country you seem to come from, where possibly the effects of technology do not appear as rapidly as some others. It's hard to take such arguments seriously when faced with the preponderance of direct evidence to the contrary(for example the cell phone/poverty issue).

http://www.undp.org.za/democratic-go...and-innovation

http://blog.mysciencework.com/en/201...space-2-0.html

Anyway, I don't feel the need to continue this particular conversation with you any longer.

RAMA
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote