Options

Are we too dependent on technology?

135

Posts

  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Being dependent on something you're capable of creating is not a bad thing.

    Thing is we've become so specialzed as indidvudals you'd need an awfully large number of experts to totally recreate all our technology

    The communications stuff we could live without. Commerce would just get more localized. The real issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Food. There's large parts of our world, namely the large cities, that really don't produce any food of their own. We're highly reliant on an industrialized food industry to make and deliver enough food to our urban centers. A breakdown of that would be survivable but would lead to mass famine and probably a large exodus out of the cities
    It's a lot more consistent than what humanity has had to live through in the past. And I can't really think of one thing that would specifically break down our agricultural system (without dooming everything else, like loss of water or sunlight). We're getting to the point where we don't even need sunlight to grow our crops.

    I find it hard to believe that you can grow crops without sunlight.

    The system has to get its energy from somewhere.

    Besides that, one thing that can break down our agricultural system: microorganisms. This is more true nowadays since we have been genetically engineering our crops to reduce genetic variety, which makes them more susceptible to epidemic/pandemic diseases.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe that you can grow crops without sunlight.

    You've obviously never seen some of the finer closets in San Francisco.

    Edit: Or basements in Ohio.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe that you can grow crops without sunlight.

    You've obviously never seen some of the finer closets in San Francisco.

    Edit: Or basements in Ohio.

    I am aware of plants that do not rely on photosynthesis to survive.

    AFAIK crops are plants that do rely on it, though.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe that you can grow crops without sunlight.

    You've obviously never seen some of the finer closets in San Francisco.

    Edit: Or basements in Ohio.

    I am aware of plants that do not rely on photosynthesis to survive.

    AFAIK crops are plants that do rely on it, though.

    Marijuana plants rely on photosynthesis to survive.

    Edit: Also, when did the sun become technology?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe that you can grow crops without sunlight.

    You've obviously never seen some of the finer closets in San Francisco.

    Edit: Or basements in Ohio.

    I am aware of plants that do not rely on photosynthesis to survive.

    AFAIK crops are plants that do rely on it, though.

    Marijuana plants rely on photosynthesis to survive.

    Edit: Also, when did the sun become technology?

    Right but that's just good ole' 100 W globes.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    I find it hard to believe that you can grow crops without sunlight.

    You've obviously never seen some of the finer closets in San Francisco.

    Edit: Or basements in Ohio.

    I am aware of plants that do not rely on photosynthesis to survive.

    AFAIK crops are plants that do rely on it, though.

    Marijuana plants rely on photosynthesis to survive.

    Edit: Also, when did the sun become technology?

    What that thing? We uhh we always had that!


    Also there is such a thing as artificial sunlight.

    randombattle on
    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Wait, why are we talking about this? Are we planning to scorch the sky or what?

    Glyph on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Wait, why are we talking about this? Are we planning to scorch the sky or what?

    No, the machines are planning to do that. If we don't stop depending on them!

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Foresight is incredibly important when designing things to last, and also when thinking about their survival in the future.. I think Danny Hillis of the Long Now 10,000 Year Clock really says it best. To quote:

    "I think of the oak beams in the ceiling of College Hall at New College, Oxford. Last century, when the beams needed replacing, carpenters used oak trees that had been planted in 1386 when the dining hall was first built. The 14th-century builder had planted the trees in anticipation of the time, hundreds of years in the future, when the beams would need replacing. Did the carpenters plant new trees to replace the beams again a few hundred years from now?"

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • Options
    VeegeezeeVeegeezee Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Foresight is incredibly important when designing things to last, and also when thinking about their survival in the future.. I think Danny Hillis of the Long Now 10,000 Year Clock really says it best. To quote:

    "I think of the oak beams in the ceiling of College Hall at New College, Oxford. Last century, when the beams needed replacing, carpenters used oak trees that had been planted in 1386 when the dining hall was first built. The 14th-century builder had planted the trees in anticipation of the time, hundreds of years in the future, when the beams would need replacing. Did the carpenters plant new trees to replace the beams again a few hundred years from now?"

    Engineers today design structures to last what they call the "x year hurricane" or the "x year flood", etcetera etcetera ("x" being something like 100 - 500 years, depending on the circumstances), anything more than that being prohibitively expensive. It's probably a good bet that without constant upkeep, most of the skyscrapers being built today wouldn't last more than a couple of centuries before failing.

    Veegeezee on
  • Options
    danielof2k6danielof2k6 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    way to generalise from networked communication tools to anything that involves not using our bare hands to eke out an existence there champ

    You're incredibly apt at throwing a wrench into people's thread.

    danielof2k6 on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    way to generalise from networked communication tools to anything that involves not using our bare hands to eke out an existence there champ

    You're incredibly apt at throwing a wrench into people's thread.

    Do you have anything to add to the discussion? Because so far she has contributed more to it than you have.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    danielof2k6danielof2k6 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    Being dependent on something you're capable of creating is not a bad thing.

    Thing is we've become so specialzed as indidvudals you'd need an awfully large number of experts to totally recreate all our technology

    The communications stuff we could live without. Commerce would just get more localized. The real issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Food. There's large parts of our world, namely the large cities, that really don't produce any food of their own. We're highly reliant on an industrialized food industry to make and deliver enough food to our urban centers. A breakdown of that would be survivable but would lead to mass famine and probably a large exodus out of the cities

    Good point. Cities in particular would be a complete mess without electricity. And this exodus into natural areas for sustenance would likely drain those natural resources quickly. People would whipe out millions of animals out of hunger, raid eachothers crops, etc. I'd give it a month or so.

    danielof2k6 on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    Being dependent on something you're capable of creating is not a bad thing.

    Thing is we've become so specialzed as indidvudals you'd need an awfully large number of experts to totally recreate all our technology

    The communications stuff we could live without. Commerce would just get more localized. The real issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Food. There's large parts of our world, namely the large cities, that really don't produce any food of their own. We're highly reliant on an industrialized food industry to make and deliver enough food to our urban centers. A breakdown of that would be survivable but would lead to mass famine and probably a large exodus out of the cities

    Good point. Cities in particular would be a complete mess without electricity. And this exodus into natural areas for sustenance would likely drain those natural resources quickly. People would whipe out millions of animals out of hunger, raid eachothers crops, etc. I'd give it a month or so.

    We wipe out entire species on a daily basis. What's your point?

    Glyph on
  • Options
    danielof2k6danielof2k6 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    way to generalise from networked communication tools to anything that involves not using our bare hands to eke out an existence there champ

    You're incredibly apt at throwing a wrench into people's thread.

    Do you have anything to add to the discussion? Because so far she has contributed more to it than you have.

    I won't argue.

    danielof2k6 on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Being dependent on something you're capable of creating is not a bad thing.

    Thing is we've become so specialzed as indidvudals you'd need an awfully large number of experts to totally recreate all our technology

    The communications stuff we could live without. Commerce would just get more localized. The real issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Food. There's large parts of our world, namely the large cities, that really don't produce any food of their own. We're highly reliant on an industrialized food industry to make and deliver enough food to our urban centers. A breakdown of that would be survivable but would lead to mass famine and probably a large exodus out of the cities

    Good point. Cities in particular would be a complete mess without electricity. And this exodus into natural areas for sustenance would likely drain those natural resources quickly. People would whipe out millions of animals out of hunger, raid eachothers crops, etc. I'd give it a month or so.

    We wipe out entire species on a daily basis. What's your point?

    Those species usually aren't very useful to mankind.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Being dependent on something you're capable of creating is not a bad thing.

    Thing is we've become so specialzed as indidvudals you'd need an awfully large number of experts to totally recreate all our technology

    The communications stuff we could live without. Commerce would just get more localized. The real issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Food. There's large parts of our world, namely the large cities, that really don't produce any food of their own. We're highly reliant on an industrialized food industry to make and deliver enough food to our urban centers. A breakdown of that would be survivable but would lead to mass famine and probably a large exodus out of the cities

    Good point. Cities in particular would be a complete mess without electricity. And this exodus into natural areas for sustenance would likely drain those natural resources quickly. People would whipe out millions of animals out of hunger, raid eachothers crops, etc. I'd give it a month or so.

    We wipe out entire species on a daily basis. What's your point?

    Those species usually aren't very useful to mankind.
    Except the Dodo. It's problem was that is was too delicious.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Those species usually aren't very useful to mankind.
    Except the Dodo. It's problem was that is was too delicious.

    According to accounts by the people killing them, they didn't taste good.
    But journals are full of reports regarding the bad taste and tough meat of the dodo, while other local species such as the Red Rail were praised for their taste.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Being dependent on something you're capable of creating is not a bad thing.

    Thing is we've become so specialzed as indidvudals you'd need an awfully large number of experts to totally recreate all our technology

    The communications stuff we could live without. Commerce would just get more localized. The real issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Food. There's large parts of our world, namely the large cities, that really don't produce any food of their own. We're highly reliant on an industrialized food industry to make and deliver enough food to our urban centers. A breakdown of that would be survivable but would lead to mass famine and probably a large exodus out of the cities

    Good point. Cities in particular would be a complete mess without electricity. And this exodus into natural areas for sustenance would likely drain those natural resources quickly. People would whipe out millions of animals out of hunger, raid eachothers crops, etc. I'd give it a month or so.

    We wipe out entire species on a daily basis. What's your point?

    Those species usually aren't very useful to mankind.

    That is quite narrow-minded.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Being dependent on something you're capable of creating is not a bad thing.

    Thing is we've become so specialzed as indidvudals you'd need an awfully large number of experts to totally recreate all our technology

    The communications stuff we could live without. Commerce would just get more localized. The real issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Food. There's large parts of our world, namely the large cities, that really don't produce any food of their own. We're highly reliant on an industrialized food industry to make and deliver enough food to our urban centers. A breakdown of that would be survivable but would lead to mass famine and probably a large exodus out of the cities

    Good point. Cities in particular would be a complete mess without electricity. And this exodus into natural areas for sustenance would likely drain those natural resources quickly. People would whipe out millions of animals out of hunger, raid eachothers crops, etc. I'd give it a month or so.

    We wipe out entire species on a daily basis. What's your point?

    Those species usually aren't very useful to mankind.

    That is quite narrow-minded.
    GOING CHEAP: SENSE OF HUMOR.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Corlis wrote: »
    Corlis wrote: »
    People probably said the same thing when we invented paper and stopped carving things into stone though.
    I'm kind of curious as to how durable our electronic records are, actually, such as whether disk drives or compact disks would survive a century or two if civilization suddenly collapsed. I'd feel a bit happier if we had some form of recording certain crucial things safely so that if things fall to pieces our descendants might be able to hear about our mistakes in a few hundred years.

    How about a huge titanium Monolith or Pyramid?
    I'm thinking something nice and compact :) It's got to contain the whole of our literatur and a plethora of scientific and historical writings.
    We basically need to spend time and money on designing a contemporary Hitchhiker's Guide to Humanity.

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    AcidSerraAcidSerra Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Truth be told I'm not to worried about telecomm going down. It'd suck for alot of businesses, but it would be... dissappointing. Now a doomsday in which our entire transportation system was fucked beyond belief and communications went down, now there you have something. It's really not a particularly likely scenario, but it's also not a bad idea to have some food stores on hand and know at least a few basic survival skills. Mainly because those are useful in alot of less than doomsday situations as well.

    AcidSerra on
  • Options
    LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm pretty dependent on the technology of the internets socially. I'm a typically shy guy when it comes to meeting girls at a bar/club and have used on line dating dating sites to meet very attractive girls that I would never of had the balls to approach in public.

    LondonBridge on
  • Options
    DelzhandDelzhand Hard to miss. Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Heidegger is right! We need to become peasants and write poetry.

    Are we overly dependent on tech? Maybe, but it beats being hungry and shoeless.

    Delzhand on
  • Options
    ben0207ben0207 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    AcidSerra wrote: »
    Truth be told I'm not to worried about telecomm going down. It'd suck for alot of businesses, but it would be... dissappointing. Now a doomsday in which our entire transportation system was fucked beyond belief and communications went down, now there you have something. It's really not a particularly likely scenario, but it's also not a bad idea to have some food stores on hand and know at least a few basic survival skills. Mainly because those are useful in alot of less than doomsday situations as well.

    Like zombies?

    ben0207 on
  • Options
    CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ben0207 wrote: »
    AcidSerra wrote: »
    Truth be told I'm not to worried about telecomm going down. It'd suck for alot of businesses, but it would be... dissappointing. Now a doomsday in which our entire transportation system was fucked beyond belief and communications went down, now there you have something. It's really not a particularly likely scenario, but it's also not a bad idea to have some food stores on hand and know at least a few basic survival skills. Mainly because those are useful in alot of less than doomsday situations as well.

    Like zombies?

    How is zombies not a doomsday situation?

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • Options
    mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    This whole thing begs the question: are we too dependent on technology (edit: I mean technology that centers on communication and interconnectedness)?

    And is this necessarily a bad thing?

    "Too dependent" usually implies dependency to the point of being bad. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you ask whether being too dependent is necessarily bad. I mean, if it's not bad, then we wouldn't be too dependent, right?

    mrflippy on
  • Options
    3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    This whole thing begs the question: are we too dependent on technology (edit: I mean technology that centers on communication and interconnectedness)?

    And is this necessarily a bad thing?

    "Too dependent" usually implies dependency to the point of being bad. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you ask whether being too dependent is necessarily bad. I mean, if it's not bad, then we wouldn't be too dependent, right?

    Here's my take on it -, which deviates from the specifics of 'communication' technology, only because they're all tied together. Namely power, and infrastructure technology (which enables communications).


    So rewind back to '05, and Hurricane Ivan. I'm at ground-zero in Pensacola FL, and we get pummeled by a category four hurricane. The devastation was epic. I've been through several hurricanes, and prior to Katrina, it was the worst i'd ever seen. To the un-initiated, hurricanes take everything off the grid. Your cellphones don't work because the towers are gone. You don't have power or running water. You can't get any gas. Civilization as you know it grinds to a complete halt. In the back of your mind you know things will eventually get fixed in a couple of weeks - if you're lucky. Really, it's just a taste of life without every modern comfort and trapping you've ever known - it's not camping. Camping implies you can end it any time, and go back to your air-conditioned house and gas station.

    As a IT geek, and someone who gravitates towards the finer comforts of life, it's pretty much the complete suck. It would have only had been worse if i'd lost my home, which some folks did. Society can't live without this stuff - which makes me wonder if the oil ever dries up, how really fucked we'll all be.

    3lwap0 on
  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think what I mean when I say "technology" is rather clear.

    I got it. As for the conceit, to some extent sure. If computers/the-internet got fuxxored, the world would grind to a HALT. We have no backup in these situation to replace them. If my cell phone goes out, I've always got a payphone or a home phone to get to - what replaces computers/networks if they go down?
    I'd be willing to bet that life in the White House didn't slow down to a "crawl," it slowed down to pre-Blackberry speed, which only seems slow now but was perfectly normal 5 or 10 years ago.

    The problem is - OTHER systems standardize their response times to go along with the increase in efficiency that "technology" gives us. So if one fails, then others dominoe with it. Im not saying that happened at the WH, but it could happen at other areas. FED-EX/UPS for example, what if their networks became screwed beyond timely repair - sure they were able to make do without those electronic trackers before (they had to make it work), but how many businesses wuold be affected by that now.
    Do you consider the wild west to have been too reliant upon the Pony Express and iron horse?

    It certainly increased industry, and communication. And others followed suit, and adjusted expectations. If the trains stopped running, yes people would have been screwed majorly.

    ED! on
    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ther'es a reason the mail has so much clout in the federal government. In the old days if it wasn't for a reliable mail system the entire nation would have vaporized.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    3lwap0 wrote: »
    As a IT geek, and someone who gravitates towards the finer comforts of life, it's pretty much the complete suck. It would have only had been worse if i'd lost my home, which some folks did. Society can't live without this stuff - which makes me wonder if the oil ever dries up, how really fucked we'll all be.

    Well no, our society is dependent on the existence of such technology, if not their immediate availability (as you said, things have got to look like they'll end/get better).

    But I hardly see how that's related to oil. The only thing oil is going to do is take out our transportation, not our communication. A well prepared state won't notice the loss of oil too much. Of course, convincing anyone to be well prepared (via building electric railroads etc.) is kind of hard.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    3lwap0 wrote: »
    As a IT geek, and someone who gravitates towards the finer comforts of life, it's pretty much the complete suck. It would have only had been worse if i'd lost my home, which some folks did. Society can't live without this stuff - which makes me wonder if the oil ever dries up, how really fucked we'll all be.

    Well no, our society is dependent on the existence of such technology, if not their immediate availability (as you said, things have got to look like they'll end/get better).

    But I hardly see how that's related to oil. The only thing oil is going to do is take out our transportation, not our communication. A well prepared state won't notice the loss of oil too much. Of course, convincing anyone to be well prepared (via building electric railroads etc.) is kind of hard.

    What about all the plastics in our technology?

    How are we going to manufacture all these toys we use to communicate without petroleum for plastic?

    Rolly Rizla on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    3lwap0 wrote: »
    As a IT geek, and someone who gravitates towards the finer comforts of life, it's pretty much the complete suck. It would have only had been worse if i'd lost my home, which some folks did. Society can't live without this stuff - which makes me wonder if the oil ever dries up, how really fucked we'll all be.

    Well no, our society is dependent on the existence of such technology, if not their immediate availability (as you said, things have got to look like they'll end/get better).

    But I hardly see how that's related to oil. The only thing oil is going to do is take out our transportation, not our communication. A well prepared state won't notice the loss of oil too much. Of course, convincing anyone to be well prepared (via building electric railroads etc.) is kind of hard.

    What about all the plastics in our technology?

    How are we going to manufacture all these toys we use to communicate without petroleum for plastic?

    EtOH --> (zeolite crystals, 400 degrees) --> CH2=CH2 + H2O

    CH2=CH2 is ethylene, which is the precursor to most modern plastics.

    EDIT: Also, plastic is mostly used to case things rather then actually build them.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Rolly RizlaRolly Rizla __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    3lwap0 wrote: »
    As a IT geek, and someone who gravitates towards the finer comforts of life, it's pretty much the complete suck. It would have only had been worse if i'd lost my home, which some folks did. Society can't live without this stuff - which makes me wonder if the oil ever dries up, how really fucked we'll all be.

    Well no, our society is dependent on the existence of such technology, if not their immediate availability (as you said, things have got to look like they'll end/get better).

    But I hardly see how that's related to oil. The only thing oil is going to do is take out our transportation, not our communication. A well prepared state won't notice the loss of oil too much. Of course, convincing anyone to be well prepared (via building electric railroads etc.) is kind of hard.

    What about all the plastics in our technology?

    How are we going to manufacture all these toys we use to communicate without petroleum for plastic?

    EtOH --> (zeolite crystals, 400 degrees) --> CH2=CH2 + H2O

    CH2=CH2 is ethylene, which is the precursor to most modern plastics.

    EDIT: Also, plastic is mostly used to case things rather then actually build them.

    True. I'd much rather my toys be encased in titanium or magnesium, although I've heard something recently about getting plastics from maple trees, which will be good for keep weight down on portable devices.

    I was just playing Devil's Advocate anyways. A truely technologically advanced society shouldn't have to depend on non-renewable resources.

    Society is dependent on tech. People don't have to be, but usually are if they want to function efficently in society.

    Rolly Rizla on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    3lwap0 wrote: »
    As a IT geek, and someone who gravitates towards the finer comforts of life, it's pretty much the complete suck. It would have only had been worse if i'd lost my home, which some folks did. Society can't live without this stuff - which makes me wonder if the oil ever dries up, how really fucked we'll all be.

    Well no, our society is dependent on the existence of such technology, if not their immediate availability (as you said, things have got to look like they'll end/get better).

    But I hardly see how that's related to oil. The only thing oil is going to do is take out our transportation, not our communication. A well prepared state won't notice the loss of oil too much. Of course, convincing anyone to be well prepared (via building electric railroads etc.) is kind of hard.

    What about all the plastics in our technology?

    How are we going to manufacture all these toys we use to communicate without petroleum for plastic?

    EtOH --> (zeolite crystals, 400 degrees) --> CH2=CH2 + H2O

    CH2=CH2 is ethylene, which is the precursor to most modern plastics.

    EDIT: Also, plastic is mostly used to case things rather then actually build them.

    True. I'd much rather my toys be encased in titanium or magnesium, although I've heard something recently about getting plastics from maple trees, which will be good for keep weight down on portable devices.

    I was just playing Devil's Advocate anyways. A truely technologically advanced society shouldn't have to depend on non-renewable resources.

    Society is dependent on tech. People don't have to be, but usually are if they want to function efficently in society.

    Well thanks to entropy it's all going down one way or another. Even with fusion power, we may pretty quickly drain the Earth of Tritium (you have to make it from Lithium, of which we may have only about 25 years supply) unless we can get Deuterium-Deuterium to work.

    I argue it's less about non-renewability as it is about preparation and foresight. The use of fossil fuels was a good idea, the current astigmatism about about ability to keep doing it is retarded.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Kerbob97Kerbob97 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    It (technology dependence) is still an interesting thought to say the least.
    The biggest thing I worry about are the people. When Rita came towards Houston, people went batshit loco.
    They got on the highway to "escape" the hurricane. Then they sat there for hours, with their cars running, until they ran out of gas. After Katrina they were terrified of the idea of a hurricane. People 3 hours from the coast left town.

    Unfortunately, most people's idea of self reliance is calling pizza hut to deliver, or going to the store to get some hotpockets. And if there is a problem the government will fix it. If something goes wrong they do not know what to do.

    Kerbob97 on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ED! wrote: »

    I got it. As for the conceit, to some extent sure. If computers/the-internet got fuxxored, the world would grind to a HALT. We have no backup in these situation to replace them. If my cell phone goes out, I've always got a payphone or a home phone to get to - what replaces computers/networks if they go down?

    Anything sufficient to take out the internet is probably going to kill us all off anyway.

    MKR on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »

    I got it. As for the conceit, to some extent sure. If computers/the-internet got fuxxored, the world would grind to a HALT. We have no backup in these situation to replace them. If my cell phone goes out, I've always got a payphone or a home phone to get to - what replaces computers/networks if they go down?

    Anything sufficient to take out the internet is probably going to kill us all off anyway.

    Exactly. You can slow the internet down and cut off large sections of it, but to completely wipe out global networking would require either a super-intelligent virus (Skynet/Daedalus/Icarus/Helios) or the essential destruction of most of the major cities of the world and even then.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    ED! wrote: »

    I got it. As for the conceit, to some extent sure. If computers/the-internet got fuxxored, the world would grind to a HALT. We have no backup in these situation to replace them. If my cell phone goes out, I've always got a payphone or a home phone to get to - what replaces computers/networks if they go down?

    Anything sufficient to take out the internet is probably going to kill us all off anyway.

    Exactly. You can slow the internet down and cut off large sections of it, but to completely wipe out global networking would require either a super-intelligent virus (Skynet/Daedalus/Icarus/Helios) or the essential destruction of most of the major cities of the world and even then.

    Making a virus to infect "the internet" would be one hell of an engineering feat. It would need to infect every router, and it's more likely that they would crash, and it would either be bricked (and subsequently replaced), or fixing it would be as simple as reflashing the firmware. Even if you made one to infect every OS used in routers, it would need to get past the wide range of security systems on them. The more important the router is, the less likely it is to be vulnerable, limiting the scale of any malware attack.

    Even if every major city were wiped off the map, routes would be established around them automatically (don't worry, none of the routing protocols are going to make a router smart enough to overthrow humanity :P).

    MKR on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    If you hit all the major hubs you could seperate the internet into chunks but totally disabling it would be quite a feat.

    nexuscrawler on
Sign In or Register to comment.