How Much More Technology Does Humankind Actually Need?
According to the Writer’s Almanac, today would be the 102nd birthday of American poet and pacifist William Stafford. When he was asked if he felt accomplished, Stafford answered: “This may sound brutal, but I don’t cherish the poems that are done. I cherish the poems that are coming. I’d sacrifice all of the poems of the past for whatever is coming up.”
This reminds me of my career as a marketing consultant to the Fortune 500 tech companies and, in particular, my work for the leader of super-computing, Cray Research. Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of meeting the company’s founder, Seymour Cray, but I’ll never forget the story for which he was perhaps best known: Each year, he would design a new sailboat concept, have it built, sail it around the world, and immediately burn it. His rationale, he explained, “I don’t want to be married to an idea.”
Though I’m intrigued and impressed with the creative thinking of both Cray and Stafford, my native mode of being works in the exact opposite direction. Humankind has already invented technology that can solve the world’s thorniest problems: cleaning up the environment, feeding the world’s children, curing most illnesses, and so forth. Those who concern themselves with alleviating human suffering are united in one idea: let’s use what we already have to turn this ship around while there’s still time.
We don’t need any more technology. In fact, thousands of years ago, people got along with very little technology. They had the technology to start fires and control them, the technology for simple farming, and even the technology to make adequate clothing. People survived for centuries with no more technology than that thereby proving that we don’t need much of the technology which we not have.
The relevant question is not how much more technology we need, but rather, how much more technology is desirable. We have many things that we don’t need, but which we would greatly miss if we lacked them. Of course there are some situations where we fail to use existing technologies as effectively as we should and could.
Frank,
Well said, very well said !
New Age Technological Development is Critical.
And I take the exact opposite view to Craig and Frank on this point.
New technologies are critical to bring the world into a globally inclusive, prosperous, smart and safe new age future. Which is now?
Firstly though, and reflecting on both Craig and Franks comfort zone musings, they should both reflect a bit deeper on the subject and remind themselves that they have both been fortunate in their lives as the direct beneficiaries of all of the modern technological incarnations ever developed. They have both not missed out on having access throughout their lives so far to any single new technology and innovation!
How come? Well in Frank and Craig’s case, it’s directly attributable to economic affluence and a whole host of other favourable familial and societal circumstances that surrounded them from birth, so through this good fortune, their lives were most suited to easy access to the technology of the day.
Many do not have those favourable circumstances to rely on in their own lives, but this is where new technology has a role like no other to play.
New era technologies are absolutely critical and many of them are already long overdue (power generation science for example) so what big ticket technology for example is currently being discussed and planned for that we will see in the near future, and what scientific genre will attract the most focus in the short term and why?
Only in a book can this subject be tackled adequately, so I am going to confine my brief remarks to one special technology category only, that of healthy food manufacturing, and this is the most popular discussion topic for students in the middle school technology lecture series that I implemented 3 years ago in China.
Food Agriculture verses Food Manufacture:
The future of healthy food production technologies will look very different to the disparate and convoluted food production technologies and techniques that we experience in every society (and at enormous cost and suffering to many) today.
New age food manufacturing technologies will be ‘human equalising technologies’, and bring forth global social changes never before visualised as possible.
New age food science technologies are predicated on four critical discovery and design imperatives being achieved:
1. The current labour intensive; expensive, unpredictable and complex agricultural food production technologies and processes, will be replaced by a healthy food manufacturing science instead that relies on synthesis at the molecular level of readily available low cost raw earth materials only.
2. The technology will be compact; modular and easily scalable; will be fully automated and require only minimal labour intensity throughout the healthy food manufacturing process.
3. The technology will produce a variety of very high quality ‘customised healthy food staples’ for processing and cuisine development further along the supply and distribution chain as required, but in its own right the ‘customised healthy food staples’ will constitute everything necessary for optimum human development.
4. Lastly and most importantly; very high quality manufactured food staples should be able to be manufactured locally and at a very low cost to consumers everywhere. This form of technology should ensure that ‘new age healthy food’ can be assigned to the “air – water – energy – food” category, which encompasses the four (should strive for through technology) lowest cost basic essentials required for human existence, that global prosperity as individuals families, communities and nations can springboard from, efficiently, economically, safely and peacefully.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
It appears that you missed my second paragraph. Here it is again:
“The relevant question is not how much more technology we need, but rather, how much more technology is desirable. We have many things that we don’t need, but which we would greatly miss if we lacked them. Of course there are some situations where we fail to use existing technologies as effectively as we should and could.”
I don’t see how that could be construed to mean that I oppose technology.
Yes I read your second paragraph Frank, but I also read your opening sentence:
“We don’t need any more technology.”
I know you don’t believe that Frank but it is a confusing powerful opener.
Is satire dead? Are people no longer able to understand it? Does everything have to be literal? How could anyone possibly believe that I could take the position that everything we did to advance technology from 3000 BC was a mistake?
Ok Frank I’ve got it after a reread. And no satire is definately not dead there should be more of it.