Darkwing Duck,
Obviously. You obviously realize that's a problem?
Obviously. You obviously realize that's a problem?
What's "Internet 2.0"
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Robert, why don't you just admit that technology gives you a semi and be done with it? You're going to support new technology no matter WHAT bad things it could be used for. You have the same sort of blind faith in "technological progress" as the people who built Titanic.
I'll give you yet another counter example: "cloud computing". The concept is that the desktop becomes nothing but an access terminal for materials stored entirely on-line. Convenient perhaps. But consider the implications of NOT actually physically owning and controlling your data and software. All the ISP has to do is press a few keys and you're locked out and who knows WHAT they're going to do with your data? If it's on YOUR system, they have to work to get it. If it's on THEIR system, can it really be called yours when they can freeze you out so easily?
I didn't take any kind of nasty tone with you so I don't appreciate your insults. I thought my point was clear: technology itself is neutral. How it is used is driven by the needs of end-users, the wishes of the corporations involved in the infrastructure, and the policy decisions of the government. Those things are all interrelated and have very little to do with the technology itself.
I actually am very concerned about the ways technology can be used to invade privacy, stifle speech and activism, and violate people's rights. But people who are searching for technological solutions to these problems are going to come up empty, because technology can't fill a gap that's created by voter apathy and political corruption.
As for the cloud: you are under no obligation to use it. I have data on the cloud (primarily Google services) but I'm not an idiot, I keep it all backed up on my personal systems in the event I lose access or Google changes the terms of their service in a way I don't like.
Whether you'll admit it or not, technology is empowering. The way computers work right now, the power is in your hands if you are willing to educate yourself and take advantage of it. If you'd rather be scared and proclaim that the sky is falling, be my guest, but the people who know better will ignore you.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
All right, that probably was a bit harsher than I really intended. I'll offer apologies.
My point, put less confrontation-ally, is that in every thread about technology I've heard you chime in on, your thesis seems to be "technology uber alles". You never met a tech that you didn't like, no matter it's implications.
Exactly what I would expect a technocrat (descriptive usage of the term ONLY) to say. Myself (an a lot of others) cannot evaluate a technology without considering it's implications and outcomes. Some technology would be better off left UNdeveloped because of it's likely uses.
But by slowing or stopping the development of certain kinds of technology, we can stop or at least limit the negative effects of same.
And for now you have that option. What happens when the industry forces a paradigm shift towards the Cloud by stopping making stand-alone desktops?
Don't think it can't happen? Look at Hi Def TV. Only took off after the industry used it's lobbyists to FORCE networks to go digital/hi-def.
The question is WHO is empowered.
And when the sky DOES fall?
I think you mistake acknowledgement of reality for advocacy. While I do, in general, support the advancement of technology, I'm also smart enough to realize it is a march impossible to stop. It is a losing battle to try to put the reins on our technology and slow down its development. Instead, we have to try to stay ahead of it and deal with its growing implications.
That's where you make your mistake, in thinking I don't consider the implications of technology. I deal with those implications every day. You are not going to get anywhere saying, "we should not develop this technology because of how it might be used!" Yeah, you could probably do that for really obvious things like biological weapons, human cloning, and the like, but you're not going to shut down development of something as generalized as a network protocol, which could be used for virtually any purpose. I think that's the distinction you have to make: we're talking about technologies that are, in and of themselves, neutral. This isn't like talking about nuclear weapons, which can only be used to kill and destroy.
And I'm saying this is an utterly unrealistic position. You can come back and say it isn't, but you'd be wrong. Unless you're going to convince basically the whole world to embrace Luddism, this battle is lost before it's even begun.
This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Power on the desktop is cheap and getting cheaper. The only people who favor going entirely to the Cloud are those who stand to make money from it. Everybody else knows better.
Many Cloud applications are adequate, but barely so. Specialized, expert applications--think Photoshop, 3D modeling software, CAD, simulation software, etc.--cannot be done to any level of satisfaction with Cloud-based services. Hell, I find Google Docs inadequate for mundane spreadsheet editing. The quality of service just isn't there.
In addition, we lack the bandwidth to make most applications function well on the Cloud. US bandwidth growth is stunted, for the moment, and that's going to seriously hamper the deployment of complex Cloud services.
Thirdly, while I'm sure companies like Microsoft and Google just salivate over the idea of people storing all their critical documents (photos, budgets, music, etc.) out on the Cloud, the vast majority of people are not ready to make that leap, and I don't blame them. I would never use a third-party service as the only repository for my documents. That's insanity and most people know it.
You seem to be envisioning a hypothetical future in which no one manufactures hard drives or local operating systems. That is, to put it bluntly, a baseless fantasy.
Which was a matter of opening up spectrum bandwidth, not some conspiracy to put analog TV manufacturers out of business.
You pretty much can't buy a CRT monitor anymore--everything is LCD, plasma, etc. Do you think that's the result of some kind of conspiracy, too? It isn't. It's the result of LCDs reaching the point where they're cheaper, more efficient, and more convenient than CRTs, and so people bought them and the market moved in that direction.
Digital TV was a policy issue only because of the EM spectrum.
Whomever is willing to educate themselves on how to use it to its fullest potential.
I'm serious, if you are worried about this stuff, educate yourself. This is a unique time in history: the power is in your hands. We still have this vast, open Internet where anyone can setup a website, make social connections, organize and get active. Joe Blogger is on equal footing with the New York Times--and he probably gets more traffic.
You seem to think the Internet has become a tool whereby the haves can oppress the have-nots. It has not--not yet. It might in the future, but not if people stick up for the Internet as we have it now, and fight to preserve the features that make it so vital and useful for the common person.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement.
You are worried about what will happen when the sky falls, and I am more concerned with keeping it from falling in the first place. You'll never go wrong predicting disaster--someday, somewhere, you'll be vindicated when the shit hits the fan. It takes a lot more effort to take in the full aspect of a problem, work out its advantages and disadvantages, and try to set a course that avoids disaster.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
^I'm not going point by point through all that, just make a few general comments:
1) Saying "we can't stop it, it's too big" is defeatism. It's saying that man cannot control himself and his self-created environment. We could stop harmful technological applications TODAY if the world stood up and told the capitalist technocracy "NO!" in one clear voice.
2) I'll grant your point about macro-scale vs application scale technology is well taken. I am not, as you seem to imply, a Luddite. I do not oppose all technology on principle. But I see too many places where technology is being misused to the detriment of the greater human good. Often times without any real understanding of the potential implications of a failure or unexpected event concerning it.
I offer as an example certain "sterile" seeds genetically created by agri-corps like Monsanto. The aim is to create a seed that germinates ONCE, but will not properly reproduce. The goal is to keep the farmer buying new seed every year, instead of practicing traditional farming by saving part of the crop to "seed" next year's crop.
First, I object to the idea that food has become a patentable technology. Second, I object that we are genetically altering food NOT in a natural way subject to natural processes, but artificially in ways that we do not understand and cannot predict all outcomes of. Third, consider what would happen if pollen from such "sterile" seed were to enter the general food chain. It would cause a national collapse of the grains industry in any nation that used such seed.
Now, which is better? To allow the seed to be developed THEN try to "put the genie back" or simply not allow it to be developed period?
1) Saying "we can't stop it, it's too big" is defeatism. It's saying that man cannot control himself and his self-created environment. We could stop harmful technological applications TODAY if the world stood up and told the capitalist technocracy "NO!" in one clear voice.
2) I'll grant your point about macro-scale vs application scale technology is well taken. I am not, as you seem to imply, a Luddite. I do not oppose all technology on principle. But I see too many places where technology is being misused to the detriment of the greater human good. Often times without any real understanding of the potential implications of a failure or unexpected event concerning it.
I offer as an example certain "sterile" seeds genetically created by agri-corps like Monsanto. The aim is to create a seed that germinates ONCE, but will not properly reproduce. The goal is to keep the farmer buying new seed every year, instead of practicing traditional farming by saving part of the crop to "seed" next year's crop.
First, I object to the idea that food has become a patentable technology. Second, I object that we are genetically altering food NOT in a natural way subject to natural processes, but artificially in ways that we do not understand and cannot predict all outcomes of. Third, consider what would happen if pollen from such "sterile" seed were to enter the general food chain. It would cause a national collapse of the grains industry in any nation that used such seed.
Now, which is better? To allow the seed to be developed THEN try to "put the genie back" or simply not allow it to be developed period?
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
^I'm not going point by point through all that, just make a few general comments:
1) Saying "we can't stop it, it's too big" is defeatism. It's saying that man cannot control himself and his self-created environment. We could stop harmful technological applications TODAY if the world stood up and told the capitalist technocracy "NO!" in one clear voice.
2) I'll grant your point about macro-scale vs application scale technology is well taken. I am not, as you seem to imply, a Luddite. I do not oppose all technology on principle. But I see too many places where technology is being misused to the detriment of the greater human good. Often times without any real understanding of the potential implications of a failure or unexpected event concerning it.
I offer as an example certain "sterile" seeds genetically created by agri-corps like Monsanto. The aim is to create a seed that germinates ONCE, but will not properly reproduce. The goal is to keep the farmer buying new seed every year, instead of practicing traditional farming by saving part of the crop to "seed" next year's crop.
First, I object to the idea that food has become a patentable technology. Second, I object that we are genetically altering food NOT in a natural way subject to natural processes, but artificially in ways that we do not understand and cannot predict all outcomes of. Third, consider what would happen if pollen from such "sterile" seed were to enter the general food chain. It would cause a national collapse of the grains industry in any nation that used such seed.
Now, which is better? To allow the seed to be developed THEN try to "put the genie back" or simply not allow it to be developed period?
1) Saying "we can't stop it, it's too big" is defeatism. It's saying that man cannot control himself and his self-created environment. We could stop harmful technological applications TODAY if the world stood up and told the capitalist technocracy "NO!" in one clear voice.
2) I'll grant your point about macro-scale vs application scale technology is well taken. I am not, as you seem to imply, a Luddite. I do not oppose all technology on principle. But I see too many places where technology is being misused to the detriment of the greater human good. Often times without any real understanding of the potential implications of a failure or unexpected event concerning it.
I offer as an example certain "sterile" seeds genetically created by agri-corps like Monsanto. The aim is to create a seed that germinates ONCE, but will not properly reproduce. The goal is to keep the farmer buying new seed every year, instead of practicing traditional farming by saving part of the crop to "seed" next year's crop.
First, I object to the idea that food has become a patentable technology. Second, I object that we are genetically altering food NOT in a natural way subject to natural processes, but artificially in ways that we do not understand and cannot predict all outcomes of. Third, consider what would happen if pollen from such "sterile" seed were to enter the general food chain. It would cause a national collapse of the grains industry in any nation that used such seed.
Now, which is better? To allow the seed to be developed THEN try to "put the genie back" or simply not allow it to be developed period?
Good luck with that.
Then fight those misuses rather than trying to fight the technology itself. Draw attention to how it can be abused, fight for policy to deal with it. But you're not going to thwart the technology itself--it's too entrenched and too integrated in our lives. Nothing short of a cataclysm is going to yank it out.
Yes, I've always been troubled by the "terminator" seed concept. That is a technology that really has no positive, public use, though--it exists solely to protect the patent interests of Monsanto and the like. It makes a very poor example for that reason.
A comparable computer technology concept would be DRM, which allegedly exists to allow artists the ability to protect their work, but as a practical matter is only used by massive media conglomerates to thwart casual infringement. It provides zero benefit to end users and often even causes problems for legitimate users. I would say that this is a technology we shouldn't have bothered developing, but we did it anyway--and the public verdict has pretty much been that it sucks and we don't want it. While it still exists in some forms, it no longer has the clout it used to, and media companies have figured out it's easier to take a policy approach than a technology approach.
This argument is on very shaky ground considering our crops have not been "natural" for some centuries now. Selective breeding of virtually every crop known to man has irrevocably altered the original, "natural" state of those crops. While I do have some apprehension regarding GM crops, I don't think using genetic engineering to improve yields and disease resistance is a bad idea in and of itself.
I'm of the opinion that the terminator seed concept should simply be outlawed, as it serves absolutely no public good and is potentially disruptive to the food supply.
But, again, it makes for a lousy comparison to computer technology.
But the seed was already developed, so you made my point for me. By the time we caught up and realized this was a bad idea, we'd already done it. That's just how these things happen. Sometimes there is no choice but to try to put the genie back into the bottle. What else are you suggesting, some kind of global panel that decides what technologies we should and shouldn't develop?
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
There is a fundamental difference between cross-breeding compatible plants in a natural way and gene-geneering plants with entirely foreign, ordinarily incompatible genes.
Cross a wheat plant with a wheat plant and you get a wheat plant.
Splice a wheat seed with tobacco genes and you get what?
Or add a peanut gene, for another example. Will that make the resulting wheat non-edible for anyone with peanut allergies? Are you willing to bet lives on that won't?
The principle is the same. Outlaw bad computer tech.
In an ideal world that would be worth exploring. Any proposed technology would not be developed until a solid understanding of what it does/could do was developed, and appropriate regulation/limitation of it's implementation promulgated.
I see no fundamental difference between exploiting a random mutation through selective breeding and intentionally inserting specific genes into a species. They both have equal potential for positive and negative effects.
Such as??
And human progress would ground to a halt, making the current global recession look like a small bump in the road. Advancement of technology is basically the only thing giving us productivity gains these days, meaning it is a huge driver of GDP growth. You want to drag out this recession another 30 or 40 years, sure, let's do this.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Compare a natural grown tree with a collection of boards that have been sawed up, nailed together and carved into the shape of a tree. Clearly those two are not the same thing.
Breeding like kinds of plant for improvement is entirely NATURAL, and involves compatible genes. Splicing a peanut gene, as I said, into a wheat plant is 1) NOT naturally combining like with like, and 2) has the definite potential to cause problems not intended by the genetic meddling (the induction of a new allergen).
Gene-geneering is NOT a precise science, and the possibilities of bad results are endless. We don't know enough about genes to go "cut and pasting" stuff that doesn't occur in nature together and HOPE that it turns out ok.
I would start with Apple's new "forced performance" programming that allows them to hijack your computer and make you jump through a set of their hoops to get it back again. That's one example.
And human progress would ground to a halt, making the current global recession look like a small bump in the road. Advancement of technology is basically the only thing giving us productivity gains these days, meaning it is a huge driver of GDP growth. You want to drag out this recession another 30 or 40 years, sure, let's do this.[/QUOTE]
No, what's "grinding us to a halt" is that we've allowed too much technology loose that has eliminated the need for millions and millions of laborers and placed millions more in the first world in direct competition with third word peasents in mud huts and sweatshops.
That is a phony analogy if I ever saw one.
I'll put it to you this way: "natural" is irrelevant. Very few things about our way of life are natural. Our medical technology is unnatural. Living in structures built from synthetic materials is unnatural. Sanitation is unnatural.
You seem to be worried about people with peanut allergies being harmed by the addition of peanut genes to other crops. Do you have any evidence that this is happening or that the people doing it are not considering the potential impact on those allergic to peanuts?
Neither is selective breeding, I would point out. Suppose we find a crop with a mutation that makes it almost impervious to disease, but we don't realize that, several generations down the line, this mutation produces sterile seeds. Think it can't happen? It most certainly can. There are well-known mutations, for instance, in cat and dog breeds, that are fatal if bred improperly for a few generations.
Considering that particular "innovation" adds no value for the user, I don't see it taking off. I certainly won't be buying any Apple products that have it. Why is it necessary to outlaw it? If it's a bad idea, the people will decide as much as not use those products.
And those are policy problems, not technology problems. You constantly confuse the two.
Wow this has turned into the Maxwell v. Duck debate....
Darkwing Duck,
(Post #26)
Yeah, but how would you get enough people worldwide to stand up to people who seek to develop immoral, reckless, or harmful technological applications?
That is actually a very serious issue, and yet nothing seems to be done. Anybody who attempts to raise such a point is called a luddite, or anti-progress, even though I'm not opposed to all applications of technology, and neither are many other people who probably hold similar views, and many people do not seem to understand the definition of progress. It basically means a forward motion towards a goal. The goal is not necessarily good, and this is a serious, and a very common misconception.
I've always felt that the terminator gene was a definitively evil concept for a number of reasons which you describe here, and list below.
I don't believe that genes, or life-forms should be considered patentable. Under that logic, if Monsanto developed a form of gene-therapy, to make infants immune from some kind of disease, they could assert that the gene is patentable, and claim ownership of the organism in which it was incorporated into, which in this case would include a human being. Of course we have Constitutional Amendments against involuntary servitude, and such, but Monsanto's a powerful company with a huge lobby, and has quite the revolving-door going (between politics and their corporation)... Luckily the Supreme Court ruled that one cannot patent forces of nature, or life. However, who knows if Monsanto has some way around that, or what not.
Actually one of Monsanto's goals was to enable them to control the agricultural industry of entire countries. Of course this is totally morally bankrupt, but they're a morally bankrupt company.
(Post #29)
Of course, the problem of this is, who oversees and regulates this group? They would have access to technology that the rest of the world would not know about it yet, as revealing how the technologies involved work would enable people to develop it independent of regulation. So you would have to keep it a secret, in order to avoid this, and then you could only imagine how this group wouldn't develop and misuse the technology they're supposed to regulate, if they felt it would benefit and enrich themselves, effectively making the problem far worse for everybody in the entire world except them, or you would have to engage in total surveillance in order to ensure nobody who learns about the technological development to ensure nobody develops it independent of regulation (assuming the technology conceived of would not be kept secret)
Knowing what to regulate and what not to regulate is a very tricky beast, I think this particular concept would be doomed to fail, and would effectively transform this technology oversight and regulation group into an oligarchy.
(Post #31)
That's a serious problem
Robert Maxwell,
(Post #28)
How would you fight the misuses? By making laws that deal with the misuses right?
In some cases, isn't the only way to prevent abuse, to outlaw the use of a specific type of technology?
It was a hugely immoral use of science and technology
Have you read about the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement?
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Of course not, but not all genetic-engineering entails making greater yields and disease resistance, an example would be the terminator gene, which we discussed earlier.
He's talking about immoral uses of technology
(Post #32)
Well, policy is driven by technology, and technology is driven by policy. They are interlinked.
(Post #26)
Yeah, but how would you get enough people worldwide to stand up to people who seek to develop immoral, reckless, or harmful technological applications?
That is actually a very serious issue, and yet nothing seems to be done. Anybody who attempts to raise such a point is called a luddite, or anti-progress, even though I'm not opposed to all applications of technology, and neither are many other people who probably hold similar views, and many people do not seem to understand the definition of progress. It basically means a forward motion towards a goal. The goal is not necessarily good, and this is a serious, and a very common misconception.
I've always felt that the terminator gene was a definitively evil concept for a number of reasons which you describe here, and list below.
I don't believe that genes, or life-forms should be considered patentable. Under that logic, if Monsanto developed a form of gene-therapy, to make infants immune from some kind of disease, they could assert that the gene is patentable, and claim ownership of the organism in which it was incorporated into, which in this case would include a human being. Of course we have Constitutional Amendments against involuntary servitude, and such, but Monsanto's a powerful company with a huge lobby, and has quite the revolving-door going (between politics and their corporation)... Luckily the Supreme Court ruled that one cannot patent forces of nature, or life. However, who knows if Monsanto has some way around that, or what not.
Actually one of Monsanto's goals was to enable them to control the agricultural industry of entire countries. Of course this is totally morally bankrupt, but they're a morally bankrupt company.
(Post #29)
Of course, the problem of this is, who oversees and regulates this group? They would have access to technology that the rest of the world would not know about it yet, as revealing how the technologies involved work would enable people to develop it independent of regulation. So you would have to keep it a secret, in order to avoid this, and then you could only imagine how this group wouldn't develop and misuse the technology they're supposed to regulate, if they felt it would benefit and enrich themselves, effectively making the problem far worse for everybody in the entire world except them, or you would have to engage in total surveillance in order to ensure nobody who learns about the technological development to ensure nobody develops it independent of regulation (assuming the technology conceived of would not be kept secret)
Knowing what to regulate and what not to regulate is a very tricky beast, I think this particular concept would be doomed to fail, and would effectively transform this technology oversight and regulation group into an oligarchy.
(Post #31)
That's a serious problem
Robert Maxwell,
(Post #28)
How would you fight the misuses? By making laws that deal with the misuses right?
In some cases, isn't the only way to prevent abuse, to outlaw the use of a specific type of technology?
It was a hugely immoral use of science and technology
Have you read about the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement?
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Of course not, but not all genetic-engineering entails making greater yields and disease resistance, an example would be the terminator gene, which we discussed earlier.
He's talking about immoral uses of technology
(Post #32)
Well, policy is driven by technology, and technology is driven by policy. They are interlinked.
Last edited:
Generally speaking, yes. And we can make laws proactively--think human cloning. This is not something we've done, but I do believe it is already illegal (or on its way there.)
Sure. I would be OK with that, too, as long as I agree with the particular use being outlawed.
Why do you have to bring morality into this? As soon as you start to get subjective, talking about morals and such, you lose half the audience. It's much more effective to take a utilitarian approach.
Does this technology provide a net benefit to society? To individuals? What are its drawbacks? What are its costs? These are all things that can be quantified.
Yes, I am familiar with ACTA. Basically a global DMCA. I am not happy about it. Unfortunately, there is not much individuals like us can do about it. What it will take is a large enough group of people simply ignoring it and doing what they want anyway. A law no one respects or obeys is worthless.
Which, as you quoted, I spoke out against.
See above.
Yes, but history has shown that, with a few exceptions, policy cannot control what technology will be developed--it can only influence how that technology is developed and in what ways it might be used.
Robert Maxwell,
Sounds reasonble
Without specifics, it sounds reasonable
Because if nobody cared at all about right and wrong society would cease to exist.
The drawbacks listed could be potential harm to people's freedom, people's safety and so on?
That's good to know
True, but the power the governments wield these days, the surveillance capabilities, and the means to employ data-mining make it very difficult to pull this off. Enough people get arrested, people will stop violating the law.
If you factor in some uses of data-mining, it would give the government great insights into people, including being able to manipulate them into stopping the violation of the law.
Correct
Of course it can, the space-race was based on that wasn't it? Regardless technology does influence policy
Which could include imposed restrictions on how it's used and so on?
Sounds reasonble
Without specifics, it sounds reasonable
Because if nobody cared at all about right and wrong society would cease to exist.
The drawbacks listed could be potential harm to people's freedom, people's safety and so on?
That's good to know
True, but the power the governments wield these days, the surveillance capabilities, and the means to employ data-mining make it very difficult to pull this off. Enough people get arrested, people will stop violating the law.
If you factor in some uses of data-mining, it would give the government great insights into people, including being able to manipulate them into stopping the violation of the law.
Correct
Of course it can, the space-race was based on that wasn't it? Regardless technology does influence policy
Which could include imposed restrictions on how it's used and so on?
Similar threads
