Human Intelligence as Cargo Cult

[a_unique_person]

One of the intellectual ideas that is around today that disturbs me is this one. That any problems we come up against as a species will be solved by our ingenuity, as we have been able to do just this every time we have needed to in the past.

This line of reasoning disturbs me for two reasons.

1) Hubris.
2) It reminds me of the Cargo Cults. Religions that sprang up that believed that a magical, advanced society would just keep turning up the riches that were desired.

Either way, we need to consider the possibility that we can't just solve everything that will come up. Some things may be better solved with prevention, rather than the technological fix.

 

[geni]

What problems are you thinking of that can't be solved with technology?

 

[shanek]

"Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further developments." —Julius Sextus Frontinus, Roman Engineer, 10 AD.

a_u_p's point is just as wise and considered.

How about a little substitution game (I'm in the mood for it after making that new Limbaugh thread):

"One of the intellectual ideas that is around today that disturbs me is this one. That any instances of nighttime we come up against as a species will be solved by the rising of the sun, as it has been able to do just this every time we have needed it to in the past.

This line of reasoning disturbs me for two reasons.

1) Hubris.
2) It reminds me of the Cargo Cults. Religions that sprang up that believed that a magical, advanced society would just keep turning up the riches that were desired.

Either way, we need to consider the possibility that the sun just won't come up every time. Some things may be better solved with prevention, rather than the solar fix."

(And BTW, there is one very effective and proven "Cargo Cult" for increasing riches beyond all previous limits: the free market economy, something else a_u_p is very much against.)

But hey, if it really is a problem, I'm sure government regulations will just solve them all easily and neatly, right?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Actually, if I understand AUP correctly, he's not arguing that technology can't solve everything, but that it is being applied as a fix, rather than a prevention.

Essentially, there may be something that come up in the future that we won't have the time to fix after it's begun and we should be looking for ways of preventing it.

In most ways, I'm not sure this is possible, but, to be honest, it is being done in some respects, as well.

Take, for example, the possibility of an asteroid strike on earth. (the odds are lower than movies would have you believe) there is work being done right now on how we can prevent it from happinging long before it would become an issue.

Now, I will admit, I may be totally misunderstanding AUP's point, in which case, I've just made a totally irrellavant statement. Eh...not the first time.

 

[shanek]

Actually, if I understand AUP correctly, he's not arguing that technology can't solve everything, but that it is being applied as a fix, rather than a prevention.

That's weird, because technology has always been applied as both. And he said, "Some things may be better solved with prevention, rather than the technological fix." This clearly implies that he doesn't think the prevention should be technological. From his past posting history, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he's talking about government regulations here.

Essentially, there may be something that come up in the future that we won't have the time to fix after it's begun and we should be looking for ways of preventing it.

But you can't prevent something after it's already started. That means you have a heads-up on the problem. Which means that a technological solution is possible.

Take, for example, the possibility of an asteroid strike on earth. (the odds are lower than movies would have you believe) there is work being done right now on how we can prevent it from happinging long before it would become an issue.

All technology-based, mind you.

 

[Solitaire]

Either way, we need to consider the possibility that we can't just solve
everything that will come up. Some things may be better solved with
prevention, rather than the technological fix.

The cargo cult bit really does not fit. Space aleans anyone?
How about listing problems you think cannot be fixed by technology.

 

[American]

"Give up" was always the liberal attitude, and now you have rationalized it as a philisophical ideal.

Good, be yourself. Others will pursue solutions and face challenges, building society, living our dreams, and achieving personal goals.... alien concepts that you hate and struggle to keep others from working toward and enjoying.

 

[Suddenly]

If I were going to apply the "cargo cult" concept to modern day problem solving I'd come up with a different analogy. We wait not so patiently for scientists to come up with solutions to every problem that comes down the pike, but few if any people really seek to develop and reward the type of talent work that it takes to make these discoveries.

It's like we just want the scientists to pull these things out of thin air, or deliver them on their next trip back to reality from wherever these scientists hang out...

 

[shanek]

If I were going to apply the "cargo cult" concept to modern day problem solving I'd come up with a different analogy. We wait not so patiently for scientists to come up with solutions to every problem that comes down the pike, but few if any people really seek to develop and reward the type of talent work that it takes to make these discoveries.

Now this is an extremely good point. Why is science education so frowned upon by today's society?

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually, if I understand AUP correctly, he's not arguing that technology can't solve everything, but that it is being applied as a fix, rather than a prevention.

Essentially, there may be something that come up in the future that we won't have the time to fix after it's begun and we should be looking for ways of preventing it.

In most ways, I'm not sure this is possible, but, to be honest, it is being done in some respects, as well.

Take, for example, the possibility of an asteroid strike on earth. (the odds are lower than movies would have you believe) there is work being done right now on how we can prevent it from happinging long before it would become an issue.

Now, I will admit, I may be totally misunderstanding AUP's point, in which case, I've just made a totally irrellavant statement. Eh...not the first time.

A bit of both. However, I don't see why it is that we can expect science to solve all our problems, especially, as Suddenly points out, we don't reward them.

Logically, there is no proof that science can solve every problem that is put to it. To say that here is a problem, science will solve it, is an utter absurdity. To go back to ancient Rome, one of the major health hazards it faced was water pipes made out of lead. Science could produce a wonderful water system, but it could not make it safe with the technology of the day.

Look at how long it has attacked the problem of cancer. Apart from a few specific types, most cancers are just treated to the extent that a life is extended. You can guarantee that companies are pursuing a 100% cure for all they are worth, because they will make a fortune out of it.

 

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by American
"Give up" was always the liberal attitude, and now you have rationalized it as a philisophical ideal.

Hey, that's not true at all. Liberals dont give up, they just have a different perspective to conservatives. Take just one issue, like the environment for example:

Conservatives tend to downplay the idea that humans have any adverse effect on the environment and so oppose any limitation on commerce by regulations intended to protect it. They tend to bury their head in the sand, believing if there are any problems, they are exaggerated and will be solved by technology. Liberal conservationists dont have this certainty and actively push for both prevention and solutions.

Some other conservatives even have a kind of theological fatalism about the world: resource shortages and/or degradation of the environment either cannot happen because of the protections of Providence or will happen as a sign of the End Times. Either way, there's nothing to be done about it. Given the viewpoint that such changes, if they occur, are God's will, they naturally oppose regulation intended to actively prevent such changes.

 

[shanek]

Logically, there is no proof that science can solve every problem that is put to it.

You've got a better idea?

To go back to ancient Rome, one of the major health hazards it faced was water pipes made out of lead. Science could produce a wonderful water system, but it could not make it safe with the technology of the day.

But ultimately, it was science that learned that lead was a bad thing to make water systems out of and science that found ways of doing it without lead.

Look at how long it has attacked the problem of cancer.

Okay, so please enlighten us as to what would have made us find a cure for cancer by now.

 

[Tony]

Why is science education so frowned upon by today's society?

No one wants to be a nerd.

 

[Suddenly]

No one wants to be a nerd.

More likely because it simply doesn't pay. When I went to college I had a full tuition/room/board scholarship largely because I was considered a physics prodigy. My freshman year I was the lab assistant for the department head; I more or less ran his special projects. Then I looked around and saw my future, what it would look like if I were to keep on the path I was on. I saw very unhappy people who simply worked way too hard for the pathetic sum they were paid. The real money is in figuring out how to sell the stuff the scientists make. Just the cold hard reality of the free market that if something won't sell, it isn't worth anything, so the people that do the selling are in a better position to profit than those that actually bring about progress.


So I changed majors. I still feel kind of guilty about it sometimes; like maybe I threw away a gift of some sort. Maybe if I reach financial security I'll go back into physics. I doubt it though.

 

[Tony]

More likely because it simply doesn't pay. When I went to college I had a full tuition/room/board scholarship largely because I was considered a physics prodigy. My freshman year I was the lab assistant for the department head; I more or less ran his special projects. Then I looked around and saw my future, what it would look like if I were to keep on the path I was on. I saw very unhappy people who simply worked way too hard for the pathetic sum they were paid. The real money is in figuring out how to sell the stuff the scientists make. Just the cold hard reality of the free market that if something won't sell, it isn't worth anything, so the people that do the selling are in a better position to profit than those that actually bring about progress.

Nerd.