The Instigator
Nikita_Kossolapov
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
HandsofManos
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Technological progress is a road to nowhere

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,064 times Debate No: 18104
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Nikita_Kossolapov

Pro

Changes do not always lead to better. Nowadays, technology has advanced in tremendous leaps and bounds. The advanced science and technology, technology in agriculture, in manufacturing to improve efficiency and quality of production processes to better meet people's needs. But I think it is not true. Technological progress - is a critical factor of our time, which affects all areas of human activity. This progress places in the hands of humanity powerful and extremely useful things like efficient chemical and biochemical products and tools for using atomic energy and space exploration. However technological progress has its negative side. Humanity cannot imagine the world without technological advances such as computer, televisions and machines and so on however, technology also brings harm to our society; it makes us be absolutely dependent on them. The booming of industrialization and development causes pollutions to our world. Computer technologies have dramatically changed the way people gather information, conduct research and communicate with others worldwide. Considering the tremendous startup expenses, copyright issues, objectionable materials and other potential disadvantages of technology, much research has been conducted regarding the effectiveness of, and better strategies for, technology integration. Technological progress is dangerous because it influences our health, it becomes a threat to global ecology. Technological progress makes our lives more comfortable; however, technological
progress develops faster than technological safety that leads to man-made disasters, which not only kill thousands of human lives but also cost the state and corporations huge amounts of money. According to news portal "Whoyougle" there are three hugest man-made disasters. First of all, in 1988 due to an error of technical staff on an oil platform "Piper Alpha" was explosion and fire, 167 workers died there and USA lost 3.4 billion dollars. At second of all, Chernobyl disaster in 1986, nuclear reactor exploded and radioactive release into atmosphere and water. It leads to death of 1 million people and more than 200 billion dollars loses. Around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant created an exclusion zone, where never something going to live. And obviously, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, which almost destroyed the whole country. This catastrophe makes more than 40km around nuclear reactor uninhabitable. This was the terrifying event over the past 20 years. In my opinion technological progress is too rapid, humanity is not ready yet. It will destroy our planet and this time it will be forever.
HandsofManos

Con

I would like to thank Pro for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic once again.

I'll get right to it.

The very title of this debate is in and of itself illogical, as Pro even concedes in his closing remark that technology will destroy the world. While this may not be a desirable outcome, it is still an end point that we can arrive at. the title suggest that we will go nowhere, that is to say that we will stagnate.

I always love the argument against technology, especially when it is given using Advanced Technology. Pro, myself, and you the reader are all currently using an incalculable amount of technology. At its broadest we are using the internet, a technology that has brought fresh ideas and new opportunities to people across the globe. As a direct result of the internet, primarily social media networks, Egypt was able to free itself of an oppressive dictator!

Behind the internet is the millions of pieces of hardware that enable it to exist. From giant server racks to the fiber optic cables that carry the information to your home router, and then finally to your personal computing device. These pieces of hardware all support millions of people around the world. By support, I mean that the maintenance alone requires millions of jobs, thus feeding millions of people, and allowing those people to enjoy a better standard of living. The factory that manufactures the components create even more jobs, and the factories that turn the raw materials into base components create even more. Finally, those raw materials must be either mined from the earth or created using synthetic means, but even then there were raw materials involved; and those miners are able to support their families as a result of us using this website and engaging in this debate.

I have taken Pro's argument to mean that Advanced Technology to be either inherently dangerous or inherently bad.

The reason I use the phrase Advanced Technology, is that anything, anything a human creates is considered technology.

On the African veldt at the dawn of man, we began using basic tools. A stick to extend our reach. A rock to enhance our crushing power. And the single most important technological advancement in the history of man, Fire. Fire should always be referenced with a capital F. Without Fire man would not have been able to survive in colder climates (extending our territorial range.) With Fire man was able to protect himself from predators (extending our life.) Without Fire man would not have been able to forge metal and begin to truly cultivate the earth (extending our agricultural ability.)

If you will notice I have used the term extending, or enhancing several times. The reason I have done this is to illustrate that the only reason we create technology of any form is to extend or enhance our biological limitations. Our arms are only so long and so powerful, there is an inherent limitation. By using a stick or rock, we extend the length or power of our arms. Our bodies are only able to withstand a certain degree of cold. With clothing we extend that degree further.

Technology is what allowed us to begin serious agriculture. With agriculture came more food. With more food came more time to spend on other pursuits. Agriculture is what has enabled us to create civilizations.

Technology allows us to be more productive at whatever task we are trying to accomplish. A tractor can plow more fields than an Ox. A cell phone can place a call outside of a home or office.

To deny technology, is to deny the very thing that makes us human.

Pro contends that technology is dangerous. I argue that technology can be dangerous, but it is the human that uses the technology that is truly dangerous. A hammer can build a house if used properly. A hammer can kill somone if wielded as a weapon.

Technology itself is not inherently dangerous. Humans are.

Can technology lead to disasters that kill millions, of course. But technology is also the only thing that allowed those individuals to live in the first place. Without technology, we would not have the food supply we currently have, and therefore could not possibly hope to support 6 billion hunter gatherers.

A lack of technology would be the single greatest disaster to ever befall mankind.
Debate Round No. 1
Nikita_Kossolapov

Pro

Nikita_Kossolapov forfeited this round.
HandsofManos

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited his round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nikita_Kossolapov

Pro

Nikita_Kossolapov forfeited this round.
HandsofManos

Con

One of these days I'll actually get to debate this topic. Lame.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Nikita_KossolapovHandsofManosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Nikita_KossolapovHandsofManosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF