Should we choose to limit or not limit our technology?

At this point our technology is at a level where we are able to manibulate nature and change it's form to our benefit.

Should we embrace this new way of interacting with nature, in knowledge it might be one of the things leading to future human prosperity and that it won't cause any kind of harm to nature.
Or should we strike it down in the knowledge that we are playing god and that it goes against simple human moral?

Here is and simple story where the question was asked.
A new born baby was predicted to die since he was diagnosed with cartilage deficiency, but it was found out that he might be safed but only by creating an artificial brother though cloning with his DNA though they would remove the cartilage deficiency from his coding.
Cartilage would then be transferred from the artificial brother into the new born child.
Note that the artificial child would not be harmed in any way by doing this.

This has already stirred up alot of debate, and i thought it would be an interesting subject for discussion.

*personal note* Now as this is a delicate matter where morals and ethics come in to play, i personaly have not been able to take my stand on the matter. *personal note*

We are nature. We cannot harm nature as it is us and what we do. We are doing only what is natural given our ability. So on your first point I say we do what we will and if we fall it will be because we were not worthy of it.

On the story, I'm not worried. Really not. In fact I have a very hard time caring enough about that situation to form an argument for or against.

I think as long as we have the power to improve technology, we should by all means do so. I think this video proves relevant to if it makes us run out of planetary resource.s


Basically we could still get our power from other stars.

You post that fucking video everywhere.

Anyway, no, technology can only increase human prosperity in the long run. And the long run is the only thing that actually matters.

I find that it applies to a lot. =P

Everybody in this thread, no, the world, needs to read the short story linked in my sig, entitled "Manna". It is more true and more relvant than anything you've ever read, and ought to be required reading for everybody in the world. I'm not even joking, this is a more serious issue than most people care to realize.

If it benefits human life, why not?

The story has a flaw. When that kind of mass employment would hit their would be riots everywhere. Robot's can't magically "inject" people without them resisting. The government would nationalize basically all industry we would HAVE to go communist as the entire work force would be gone. Oh and the welfare nonsense, you know how hard it would be to get to that point fast enough to control the population? The massive amount of robots , construction, seizing people from their homes. Trying to keep 200 million people under wraps is no easy task.

You're not giving the masses enough credit if you truly believe this is what would happen. "The australia project" would be started by a violent revolt if it came to that, and don't try to tell me they make robot combat models because that just would not be possible in time.

I believe that a Technate must be instated in order to prevent such a scenario, or even a communist revolution such as what you suggested. The story is not an accurate prediction, but more of a warning. And you're right, there probably would be mass riots, just look at the OWS movement and multiply it by ten and add more communists. Of course that would be a bad thing, as it would create a massive conflict and not much would be accomplished. Plus, I like the idea of a Technocracy over a Socialist state.

Multiply it by 10? Multiply it by 1000. If you replaced all industry, farming and service jobs in the states there wouldn't BE an economy any more. If the people in power weren't annihilated by the immediate insurgency they would find they have no power anymore as there's no supply cost for any products and therefore the demand would be easily sated whether they like it or not.

The introduction of unlimited free labour would absolutely destroy the economy as we know it.

My other problem is that food came at apparently little to no cost of credits in magic land. Australia is hardily a food producing nation and what would have to happen for this to continue is for them to discover a means of desalination SO efficient that they could literally irrigate the whole of australia with fresh water from desalination plants near the ocean. Besides being retardedly difficult to transport this water to the australian outback, it require a VAST amount of energy to desalinate that much water in the first place. Absolutely impossible on solar/wind as we know it.

This all not giving enough credit to the amount of power it would take to run the robots.

Exactly. And the introduction of unlimited labor is an all too real threat. The current system will not survive.

Again, it was just a story. Frankly, I don't give a damn about Australia or it's ability to survive and sustain itself. But North America can. Food isn't a problem. Ever heard of vertical farms? Energy isn't either. Nuclearf Power is the immediate solution, but isn't renewable. Until Fusion Power becomes possible we shall have to develop on renewable energy. Solar power is somewhat limited here, but in space... And the fresh water reserves in North America are plentiful, and water is very recyclable.

Again, you're very much taking the story too litterally. It's just a story after all, but it's warnings are very real.

Well yes, if we ever overcome these technical hurdles we'll be busy colonizing the galaxy though.

Regardless, a technocratic state is desirable, and as fast as possible.

Oh fuck yeah. Thought it was getting a little dreamy in the end of that story . Post scarcity society is something I will tragically not live to see, in all likelyhood.

The best part is that it doesn't seem as far-fetched as you'd think. And I disagree, I believe that it is we who shall lead humanity into this new society.

Based upon what? The story was wrong in that it believed that we had the ability to create robots except for the eyes. That's brutally, woefully, horribly inaccurate.

As of now. But I trust that such advanceents can be made within the next ten to thirty years. Leter than in the story, but definitely within our lifetime.

Technology isn't bad, it is symbolic of progress. Technology always helps people, but some people, however, may not help, and may use and create technological advances in order to gain something for themselves.

And now we go on to the idea that there is no selfless act, enjoy.