Topic. Technology will prove to be the downfall of man debate on it against the topic
Answers
Answer:
This situation illustrates the push and pull effect of new technologies. Humanity solves one problem, but the unintended side effects of the solution create new ones. Thus far civilization has stayed one step ahead of its problems. But philosopher Nick Bostrom worries we might not always be so lucky.
If you've heard of Bostrom, it's probably for his 2003 "simulation argument" paper which, along with The Matrix, made the question of whether we might all be living in a computer simulation into a popular topic for dorm room conversations and Elon Musk interviews. But since founding the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford in 2005, Bostrom has been focused on a decidedly more grim field of speculation: existential risks to humanity. In his 2014 book Superintelligence, Bostrom sounded an alarm about the risks of artificial intelligence. His latest paper, The Vulnerable World Hypothesis, widens the lens to look at other ways technology could ultimately devastate civilization, and how humanity might try to avoid that fate. But his vision of a totalitarian future shows why the cure might be worse than the cause.
WIRED: What is the vulnerable world hypothesis?
Nick Bostrom: It's the idea that we could picture the history of human creativity as the process of extracting balls from a giant urn. These balls represent different ideas, technologies, and methods that we have discovered throughout history. By now we have extracted a great many of these and for the most part they have been beneficial. They are white balls. Some have been mixed blessings, gray balls of various shades. But what we haven't seen is a black ball, some technology that by default devastates the civilization that discovers it. The vulnerable world hypothesis is that there is some black ball in the urn, that there is some level of technology at which civilization gets decimated by default.
Answer:
Yes and no, respectively.
In other words, technology is designed to be utilised in conjunction with each of our senses. A pair of binoculars extends our sight, a pair of glasses enhances our natural vision, and hearing aids are self-described, according to Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud's student and the guy I've heard referred to as the "father of psychology."
I find that technology boosts human potential and longevity in these and other, more analogous circumstances. Even if each of these has a part to play in the "fall" of humanity, based on what I assume you are truly referring to—social media, cellphones, television, and other technologies—it is evident that one of these has had a higher impact than the others.
This is my perspective, as I'll explain;
What, then, is a downfall? I questioned this as I read your title. Well, it's a decline from what we may consider to be the peak of human achievement.
Second, what success did you decline from?
According to what I observe and experience in my daily life, it appears that we are only now fully realising the loss of personal exploration of the world's mysteries, interpersonal interaction, and family traditions as a result of our technological sophistication increasing at rates faster than ever (in history).
The times when we considered our own evolution and the exploration of the world for the benefit of our species only in terms of ourselves and one another are now disappearing.
The majority of people nowadays think that search engines like Google, Yahoo, or even websites like this, where there always seems to be a solution to every problem, hold the key to all of life's mysteries. I'll also add that we now rely more than ever on communication and inquiry that takes place in the background. "Continually evolving the start and end points"
No longer do most people test any theories, conclusions, or ideas. Today I see that people wait for the next big bold titled discovery on their phones, TVs, or sporadically local papers that they the people will believe until a year or three later when the finding turns out to be politically incorrect "biology" or that the findings are not cost effective to certain products.
Before I continue, allow me to say that technology has not necessarily caused humanity to perish; rather, it has slowed down our progress and discoveries because, to put it simply, in these industrialised nations, we have grown accustomed to what we already have. It's what I would call a halt in civil progress.
The reason? We believe that we already know the solution to every problem, exactly like we do on our app. If not? Check it out or ask someone who knows more about it than I do.
That is what we are seeing right now.
Does that change? Yes. When we solely use our phones for study, testing, and application of freshly learned knowledge, that will change.
Even while it's nice right now, the bulk of us are employing our modest technological building blocks of entertainment, propaganda, or control in ways that will hold us in place in the long run.
#SPJ3