• schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    The vehicle for the growth of technology can be boiled down to two parts: a.innovation/inspiration/creativity by an originator, and
    b. Further developments by those who use the originator’s framework.

    Now there is of course a chick-egg problem where it is difficult to determine whether something is a or b and there is certainly blending of the two, but as a model, this works fine.

    Inspiration is an intangible phonomenon- it takes factors such as circumstance, prior knowledge, and creative genius to produce something that works and is (almost) wholly new from what came before in terms of concept and what the concept can be applied to.

    Examples of further developments are things like programmers using a language and compilers created from the source language and developing electronic applications. A classic example is an architectural or engineering method used widely for its stability but varied in specifics of thevactual structure.

    All of this growth of technology...
    At first glance, you may think that the most rational “reason” to procreate is happiness (of the child being born, not the ancillary happiness of parenthood). But happiness is tied to community..community is tied to its structural survival methods. The structural survival methods are comprised mainly of the technology of a society. Thus, the child is born to produce and promote the growth of technology. That is the “hidden” reason behind procreation. I’m speaking purely about intentin reasons based on “happiness” of the child. Happiness is really a front for the child’s ability to consume and produce technology by way of outright consumption (passive) or by way of originating or furthering technology. The child is de facto a means to this end.
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853
    Quite reductionist of you! Is there any chance your reduction stops at survival and does not go all the way down to the gene, the atom, the subatomic, because antinatalism then becomes meaningless too?
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    I don’t see an argument. What is your main point? Happiness for the child is tied to technology and it is a subtle but logical connection.
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853
    You reduce all the higher level reasons people give for procreation to that of survival. We survive via technology, so we need kids to be born to apply said technology and invent new ones, so that we may survive. This is reductionism. I say that you don't go further than that (i.e. reduce it to physics), because at that level antinatalism would become meaningless as a position (the same way all higher reasons become meaningless when you reduce them to survival). On the other hand, the point at which your reduction reaches, antinatalism remains a valid option. We just need to see through our cultural biases to arrive at the truth of antinatalism. If everything is reduced to physics, there's no such option.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    Ok, I see what you mean now. I reduce only to the level of survival as that is as far as “reasons” go when related to the specific situation of the animal. Once natural selection took place, it’s kind of a given. Technology may be more basic than other cultural traits, and can even be argued as our species survival niche so this especially pertains to the human animal at the foundational level. Why would it then be appropriate to go further to physics?
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853
    Because there's no reason not to. If you're willing to subsume the individual and the social to the biological, then I see no reason (other than the one I gave) why you can't subsume the biological to the physical. Your stopping there is arbitrary.
  • Bitter Crank
    6.3k
    Are humans part of the biological continuum (nature)? If we are, then it would seem to be the case that we reproduce for the same reason that all other creatures reproduce: we are programmed to engage in behaviors that result in off-spring.

    If you lab-raised a group of people from infancy and you carefully avoided teaching this group anything about sex and reproduction of any species--especially their own--would they desire to reproduce? And if, predictably, a male and female in this group had sex and the female became pregnant, would the resulting delivery of the baby be considered a miracle of birth or a nightmare? Left uninformed and unprepared for the delivery, I would think it would be closer to a nightmare than miracle.

    What about oxytocin? It seems like oxytocin is more evidence that "nature" intervenes to make sure the baby isn't tossed aside for all the pain and inconvenience it just caused.

    Perhaps we don't reproduce for any "reason" at all. Maybe we are naturally more a-natalists, rather than pro-natalists? (Granted, there is plenty of intense propaganda in favor of natalism.)

    the child is born to produce and promote the growth of technology.schopenhauer1

    This is the least persuasive of reasons for reproduction that you have come up with. In our long history of mindless reproducing, very very few children have produced any growth in technology. For most of our history (as the species we have been for several hundred thousand years--and before that, millions of years) children duplicated the existing technology--knapping pieces of rock into tools, cooking birch bark to get a strong pitch adhesive, food preparation, etc. We know they duplicated technology (rather than innovating) because the styles of knapping rock change very slowly.

    Reproduction is the essence of life: the first life forms (simple one celled animals) reproduced. Life has been doing that for billions of years--not because it is in favor of reproduction. Life has no choice in the matter. It is designed from the molecular level and up (maybe the atomic level and up? Sub atomically and up?) to reproduce.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    Because the origination of “survival” in the statistical..fit enough to not die sense, is allocated at the level of evolutionary biology, not the level of physics. I can explain the phenomenon without going any further down the causal/physical chain.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    This is the least persuasive of reasons for reproduction that you have come up with. In our long history of mindless reproducing, very very few children have produced any growth in technology. For most of our history (as the species we have been for several hundred thousand years--and before that, millions of years) children duplicated the existing technology--knapping pieces of rock into tools, cooking birch bark to get a strong pitch adhesive, food preparation, etc. We know they duplicated technology (rather than innovating) because the styles of knapping rock change very slowly.

    Reproduction is the essence of life: the first life forms (simple one celled animals) reproduced. Life has been doing that for billions of years--not because it is in favor of reproduction. Life has no choice in the matter. It is designed from the molecular level and up (maybe the atomic level and up? Sub atomically and up?) to reproduce.
    Bitter Crank

    While I grant that reproduction is partly hardwired (in our case by means of pleasure-centers (i.e. orgasms in sex and oxytocin released during childbirth perhaps..), I did qualify my statement that, I am only discussing those claiming to have kids intentionally, in order so that a new human can experience happiness, but are really doing it to advance technology. Happiness is only gained by means of enculturation by way of society. Human society is only maintained via technology. The child is born to maintain and advance technology. The hope is to advance it, but if they become a common maintainer rather than advancer, then oh well, the hope was there.

    Anyways, this also proves that the intention to bring new humans about for reasons of promoting "happiness" is actually subtly (but importantly) promoting technological advancement and maintenance. I will say, the addition of maintenance is from considering your response that most humans don't advance, but replicate. I still think that the hope is the offspring will either originate or further advance from the originators.

    So children are put on the treadmill.. or rather the GRISTMILL of trying to innovate technology. But its hardwork and sweat.. so the children are born to work hard to create technologies, but most will not, they will just work hard.

    As a side note, I always like your posts- they are well-crafted and fun to read, even if I disagree with parts. You should teach a course on, "How to disagree without being disagreeable".
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853


    Love and happiness and morality and duty are not allocated at the level of evolutionary biology though. They are higher level explanations. No one forces you to discard them and reduce them to survival. Yet you do it. You treat them as not real reasons, the real reason is survival. The same logic can apply all the way down to the reduction ladder. Natural selection is not the real reason things happen, the selfish gene is. Oh, no, it's not the gene, it's the molecule. No, it's the atom. Maybe it's the second law... all the way into the abyss!
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    The same logic can apply all the way down to the reduction ladder. Natural selection is not the real reason things happen, the selfish gene is. Oh, no, it's not the gene, it's the molecule. No, it's the atom. Maybe it's the second law... all the way into the abyss!Πετροκότσυφας

    Ha, I see what you're saying, but I don't think that it is necessarily an argument against survival as the stopping point. At the level of organism, which we are, survival is essentially all we need to reduce to. But, I am not SIMPLY reducing to survival. It is survival via technology via happiness. So, I acknowledge there are levels at play here, it is just that where they may seem disparate, I see cohering connections.
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853


    No, there's no "need" to reduce something to something else. You do it because it fits your argument (unless you give a convincing reason how your move is legitimate (it uncovers the real reason behind "reasons") while the further move is not). And you stop at the point where it won't fit your argument anymore. And it doesn't seem like you're seeing cohering connections. It seems that you see "reasons" in the higher levels and reasons in the lower. That's reductionism.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    No, there's no "need" to reduce something to something else.Πετροκότσυφας

    I am not really reducing actually. It is actually more revealing happiness= technological advancement for reasons of having children. Its more definitional than explanational I guess. It was you who brought in the idea of reduction. Survival is in the equation, but via technological advancement. There is no way to have happiness without the technology that provides the sustaining community. It is all tied together, I am not sure if reduction has to play into it. I am not saying "we are born to produce technology", but rather the reason of "happiness" is necessarily tied into technology. There is a difference.

    Certainly I see technology as foundational- thus the necessary tie with it rather than with other human cultural phenomena.
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853


    I'm the one who brought in the idea of reduction, because that's what you're doing. And the fact, if it is a fact, that you can't have happiness without technology, does not mean that happiness is the same as technology. And yes, you're not saying we are born to produce technology, you're saying we use technology to reproduce to use technology to reproduce, to infinity. The same thing you're always saying. That's reductionism.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k
    And the fact, if it is a fact, that you can't have happiness without technology, does not mean that happiness is the same as technology.Πετροκότσυφας

    Granted, perhaps I should phrase it differently such that "The intention of happiness is only had by way of technology, and thus happiness brings with it the treadmill of technology-originators/advancers/maintainers."

    And yes, you're not saying we are born to produce technology, you're saying we use technology to reproduce to use technology to reproduce, to infinity.Πετροκότσυφας

    Not exactly. Rather, what I said above. To reproduce based on happiness is to bring about the workers needed to advance technology for the community. I suppose the connection is more unintended than the way I first stated it.

    Every new line of code is just substantiating it :D.
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853
    Granted, perhaps I should phrase it differently such that "The intention of happiness is only had by way of technology, and thus happiness brings with it the treadmill of technology-originators/advancers/maintainers."schopenhauer1

    So, what if technology and the pursuit of its advancement is not a treadmill but inherently satisfying? Where does that leave us?
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    There’s no other choice..I guess you can call that inherently satisfying.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    The problem is having no choice.
    Back to your point about the reduction..more technology producers why?
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853
    The problem is having no choice.schopenhauer1

    Having no choice to what?

    Back to your point about the reduction..more technology producers why?schopenhauer1

    I think you said the reason is happiness.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    I guess there’s no evaluative aspect to this. It is to reveal the connection of happiness to technology by necessity.
  • Bitter Crank
    6.3k
    I'll respond later; right now I must go and exploit technology that already exists and purchase food and beer. It's warm and humid outside. Were I a young hot het instead of an old cold homo, I'd go breed with a female to produce spring lambs for the purpose of producing more and better technology. There are many devices that do not work very well, wear out too soon, break too easily, are not smart enough (many of them are incorrigibly stupid), and use too many resources to remain plentiful and cheap.

    So breed, you bastards, breed. Better technology tomorrow!
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    853


    I guess this means that there is indeed no problem pertaining to values/ethics then. Having solved that, we can try to see if it is true that happiness is necessarily connected to technology and if it is, which way? I believe that so far, you've given no argument for that claim, you've taken it for granted. What makes you believe that? On its face, it seems as simple as fire or a long stick being a kind of technology, so, pretty much whatever we do involves technology, so any of our goals depend on it, so they are necessarily connected. But that's too evident to be what you're saying.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    I explained it in the OP. Happiness > Community > Technology
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    How is any of this nonsense "phenomenology"?
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    Well started off describing the two ways of innovating tech

    an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience. Basically what things are like from first person.
  • Akanthinos
    1k


    Ok so you have the first paragraph of your "Prolegomena to a Phenomenology of Technology". Thats good, but thats barely laying down ink on paper. After that you'll need to work out the methodology and restrictions you want to impose on your research through an description of both your epoche and your phenomenological reduction(s). This would at least involve redrafting multiple times the same text in order to evacuate any metaphysical or natural bias you, as the author, inevitably inject in the treatment.

    If you just want to share your introspections with the group, that is great, but until you dedicate yourself to the work I've begun to describe above, you are precisely not doing phenomenology.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    I will happily change the title if you think it appropriate. If you want to point the way to proper epoche methodology, I would be happy to see an example.
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    How about you take it as an opportunity to apply the method to the subject matter? Otherwise 'Opinions on technology' would be more accurate, but also a lot more boring.

    An epoche is the work or neutralizing metaphysical and personal biases in the philosophical description of a phenomenon. It can be as simple as neutralizing your disgust toward something, forcing yourself to adopt a more neutral point of view, or as complicated as preventing any form of preconceived belief from being stated in the text, and likely should involve a bit of both.

    The importance of the epoche is in the proof-of-work it provides, its important to explain the process of epoche almost as much as you treat the subject matter itself, because it is the only way a third party may judge weither or not the author does manage to reach the state of the transcendental attitude.
  • schopenhauer1
    2.1k

    Well if I had the time I would try to get the exact recount of the thoughts of the person who invented the C language exactly as he invented it. Then I would have the exact recount of a programmer building an app in the language of C. I would hopefully have accounted for any biased in each so the reader had pure experiential understanding of the originator and advancer concepts.
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    You could do with a late transcript of those thoughts, if it was taken according to a very tight methodological inquiry. Alone it would have little value, but you could repeat this with many technology developpers and get enough transcripts to try and find a baseline. But that would yield a phenomenology of the creation of technology. Your relation, and ours, as technological entities, to the subject is already sufficiently exposed to allow for further disclosure.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.