The advancement of Technology is Good
Debate Rounds (3)
Technology is advancing fast. It is making our lives easier and faster in many aspects. However, some are saying it is ruining the essential qualities or "peace" of life that they once enjoyed. Although I know how it feels to say goodbye to something, progress will always continue and is essential for a better lfiestyle.
The Pro's opening argument consists of two basic ideas; that technology is advancing fast and that that it is beneficial to us.
Now, I won't deny my usage of technology. I think everyone in industrialized countries in fact takes technology for granted at time. But I can't say I agree that technology advancement is necessarily for the better.
In a world that has made so many technological developments in the past century alone, we can see that it's probably been more of a detriment to us than beneficial. I have 5 primary contentions to the Pro. I will label all of the arguments so you can address them easier.
1. Terrorism Harms
Increase in weapons such as bombs, guns, and even using vehicles to kill people (whether it's cars or planes). I think this is a common argument and doesn't need much elaboration. In the next century we're bound to blow up the planet. Technology has shown to hurt our collaboration between countries, and terrorism is (sadly) a growing danger to people of the 'superpower' countries on our planet.
2. Social Media Impact Harms
We become self-reliant on technology; things like social media have absolutely consumed young peoples' lives. I can't deny that when I don't have Internet for an extended period of time I feel beyond deprived. But after awhile, I realize I don't need it. I think technology hurts face-to-face communicative ability of our youth. I'll admit I like things like Facebook, but I don't let it affect my schooling. When I can seriously see people in an 8-hour day of school use their phone so much I can't believe it. They text, IM, they use social media, they take pictures, they don't focus on the material being taught at that moment in class, they act inappropriately if they get their phones taken away. Technology hurts our youth far too much.
3. Social Media Harms - Extension (thought this little portion needed it's own section)
There is further concern when people can go as far as to RUINING someone's life on the Internet. People are much more hurtful in modern times..
4. Human Extinction Harm
Population increase is shown to be a big problem, we're expected to surpass our carrying capacity within the next century, and quite frankly we don't have a good solution for that. When technology has helped with the developments of medicine by preventing death and increasing life spans its made for a big problem on Earth. The increase in technology can go as far as put us through extinction! If that doesn't shoot down your belief that technological growth (especially at this rate) is good... I'm not sure what will!
5. Animal Extinction/Habitat Destruction
My final argument is going to simply be showing the effects on other life on Earth. Many species have faced extinction because of man, we do things like deforestation that destroys their habitat, polluting oceans. I don't want to extend on this too much to be quite honest.
By reflecting on what has been said by both sides so far; I agree that progress can help out in life.. I don't think technological growth is beneficial to our planet, to other species on this planet, and furthermore.. to us.
It is true that technology can be used in harmful ways, one of them being increased terrorism. However, the real problem lies in the actions the US and other countries do to "provoke" terrorist peoples to use technology against us. Although they wouldn't be such a threat without such abilities, the more important thing is to make an agreement with them and make the best out of technology. As they say, there is no free lunch, so the arrival of new weapons is going to come with a cost, but not one that overwhelms the benefits.
The effect of TV, email, and text messages is that youth who participate with these inventions are becoming much more connected and, yes, occupied. While a student may use a phone in school, the issue is the boredom of the scholar and the barely enforced rule of "no phones allowed" or whatever. If they didn't have this technology, then they would be sneaking a book underneath their desk, and their attention would still be diverted.
The Internet can be a vile place. However, it comes with a "Terms of Service" that is automatically accepted every time you open a browser. What it states is that - Whatever you participate in, whether it be Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or others, you are responsible for your words and others can say or do anything they want. If you don't like their comments, it is your utmost responsibility to delete your account, or you are wandering back into flame war territory. If you don't like the Internet, or what people will do there, don't use it. In addition, I am almost sure most people would prefer getting insulted online than getting cornered and pounded by the very same bully.
This is a challenging area to talk about because what people WANT to do is help all others live longer, but they KNOW the population is increasing at an unsafe rate and increased life expectancy is a major cause of this problem. However, technology is not only for healing the sick or prolonging the lives of the old, it can be applied to eliminating the side effects of overpopulation. As the world's population skyrockets, so does space exploration technology. If massive crowds of people at every corner on this planet turns into such a problem, then we know that scientists will get their butts in gear to send people off to another habitable planet. In the end, what you are doing is helping more people live longer without causing too much trouble with the population. With a drawback, technology brings a better bonus.
It is quite sad that animals are dying out and forests are being eliminated as we speak, but if it wasn't worth it to people, it wouldn't be happening. Technology, like a market, fits to whatever people want or need best. If people don't care about a forest, then they will cut it down, even if they know of the harm to the animal species that once lived there.
Overall, technology helps people achieve what they want, so it reflects mankind's desires. This may be the survival of its kind, the ability to communicate more easily, or to clear out land for farming or other uses. Regardless of what it is, it is not the fault of new technology that these bad situations are popping up, it is man's own fault, and his decisions are what need to change.
- You recognize yourself that there is an increase in terrorism which can be directly correlated with technological development. The problem with this is that we can't come to an agreement with other countries, above all else, it's empirically proven that technology separates us from other parts of the world. Countries that view things differently from one another (i.e. The United States and the majority of corrupt Middle Eastern countries) won't have any reason to make agreements with us. It's a bit outrageous to think we can actually make some countries come to full agreements with us (as much as you and I both would like to see). The biggest point here is simply... with the increase of technology we see ourselves getting further away from other countries, it's a sad reality.
-You're absolutely correct, technology does come with a cost. We both agree with this statement. Unfortunately, the cost is too much to handle, as I'm stressing in all of my arguments in this debate.
2. Social Media
-I think that the fact they use it in school was more of an example and you shouldn't disregard the other points I brought up. I don't care to argue whether or not they would read a book if they didn't have a phone (which I think would still be better..) The argument I have here.. the one I want to stress is that it consumes our lives everywhere. Not just in school. Just for further clarification, people will stop communicating at a dinner table. I come from a family where we can't have our phones out at dinner time, I talk about my day and I find interest in mundane things about my family members' days. I go to a good friend's house and they all (parents included) text on their phones. They don't bother to ask about their day. This might be pure speculation, but it's odd that I have people skills and can show emotions better than my friend. I think there's a strong line of correlation that displays people who use technology less are more personable. There will be exceptions of course, I'm sure. I mean, even our writing/spelling/grammar skills are hurt. Shorthand on the things you write and the proper spelling of things. It hurts me to see people in my high school class not know how to spell things I vividly remember learning in... 2nd grade.
3. Social Media/Bullying
I actually planned on kicking this argument after my initial post, but your response has actually made me want to continue it. You're absolutely right on everything you say, but there are so many cases (recent) where it doesn't matter. This is just one example, take into consideration there are a lot of other similar stories, but I can recall a few years back I heard about a college student who was *doing his man stuff*, and a group of students must have recorded him somehow, they posted that video of him on multiple sites and he went on to kill himself. No "Terms of Service" and deactivation of an account can automatically stop you from becoming a meme and living a life of embarrassment. I don't think that this argument is NEARLY as important as my others, but it is a good example of showing how Internet can have negative impacts.
4. Human Extinction
I agree that we are doing our best to make sure our carrying capacity is increased. But even if that's true, we're only increasing our maximum capacity at a slow rate, in the mean time we continue to do things like pollute the air and destroy the ozone (with technology, mind you). And I don't mean to be disrespectful to scientists, but come on.. we haven't made any progress in the last 30 years as far as space exploration with man made missions. When it's too late, it will be too late. Where are we honestly going to go? Sure we've talked about the Moon and Mars, but there isn't any underlying evidence that shows we'll be able to support colonies of people on other celestial bodies.
5. Animal Extinction
-This has got to irritate me the most, that you really think it's okay for us to put so many groups of animals in endangerment and push it further to extinction. When you say that "if it wasn't worth it to people, it wouldn't be happening" you sound so ignorant. Aside from being able to witness the beauty of animals in their natural habitat and the beauty of nature, that isn't going to my focus as I near the end of my argument.
-The animals and plants we lose, are the important ones.. I'm going to take this from a study from Drew Harvell a professor at Cornell University that basically says, 'the ones that help us fight disease are the ones that are being killed by human carelessness, and the species that do survive are the ones that pass on things like lyme disease and west nile.'
-For example, when forests are fragmented, opossum numbers decline and white-footed mice thrive. Opossums serve as buffers for Lyme disease because they absorb and kill some of the ticks that carry the disease; at the same time, mice amplify both the numbers of ticks and the Lyme disease pathogen. Scientists do not know why the most resilient species, such as mice, are the ones that also amplify pathogens.
6. I don't mean to throw a new argument your way at this point, but I do want to point out that climate change can be linked to my 4th and 5th arguments. Climate Change is a real issue that we're not compensating for with our so to speak "green policies" where we try and help the environment. The fact is, we deteriorate the ozone layer more than we compensate for it with what we try and do.
You're right; that probably is very true explanation and definition of what technology is, we create it so it makes life easier, and to help with our desires. That doesn't mean our desires are good, man is selfish and we are willing to do things like kill animals, and destroy the environment, and be completely reckless with it.
A lot of your arguments are kind of around this principle of "technology isn't bad, people are the ones doing the bad things" but I just want to highlight that your topic of discussion here is technological advancements are good and they can't be good when we see all 6 of the things I've pointed out. Technology obviously can't be bad, since it's an inanimate object... but it's creation is what separates man on many levels.
Well, this is my last round, and I will have no more to say after you post your final argument. It was a pleasure debating with you thus far and you have provided some formidable cases to me. I will invite you to another debate that I am planning to create soon, probably the effects of a free market on a population.
A point I want to make is that while one animal is going extinct, scientists are figuring out ways to bring back two animals. The idea is that while forests are being cut down, some are being preserved and much more action is being taken to relive those forests' once glory. Or, while some unlucky few are being embarrassed online, many more others are gaining a large benefit for the same reason.
Think of how education has changed - even if youth are slightly more inclined to desire to be occupied with a phone, the class parts that they pay attention to are growing exponentially in terms of effectiveness. With the arrival of iPads, SmartBoards, and other multimedia presentation technologies, students are able to learn what was a week's worth of knowledge in the 20th century in a single day today.
Technology is also a new frontier in careers. Not to forget the availability of applications and online work jobs that are improving people's lives, but there are thousands of new prospects for those with a talent in technology. These jobs pay well, and they wouldn't be here without this recent Industrial Revolution. That's another benefit that technology bestows upon us.
Now think of factories. Without an assembly line, robotic arms, or the easy transport of goods, the huge industrial booms of the 20th century could not have been possible. Cars would be more expensive and less frequently used if not for the technological advances that gave people robotic arms, assembly lines, and easy transportation. Cars, specifically, are a perfect example of the way technology has been affecting our lives. At first, production explodes and the environment is taking a big hit, but eventually cars are getting more and more efficient. Now, as technology is really growing fast, cars that run on cleaner sources or cars that run for twice or thrice as long are being sold. People saw that they were hurting the environment and were a quickly growing problem. Now guess what? "SmartCars" and bicycles are the new preference, and some completely electric automobiles are on the way. It goes to show that while almost every aspect of technology's advance can yield harsh costs, if applied directly, these drawbacks can be reduced to minor issues that aren't important.
On the topic of climate change and the extinction of animals, there has been action diverted to this issue as well. Many new organizations and parks are being created for the preservation of nature, and for the life of animals. In my previous statement, I didn't mean to say that animals were unimportant, but that the people who can choose to collect some money and destroy an acre of forest or do nothing would prefer to rake in the cash. However, people who live like that are quickly being thrown out of their position.
Now on to your statements about terrorism and such, specifically. If we simply cannot come to an agreement with terrorist groups to leave each other alone (which could be made easier by technology, by the way), then the least we can do is use the very same technology breakthroughs to arm ourselves well from any attack they hold on us. Honestly, though, I doubt that if we remove ALL our troops from their country, make up for our troubles with some support for their people, and completely be isolated from those areas, that they will still burn with desire to bomb us. If anyone in power had the idea to try that out and focus on more important internal issues such as climate change or homelessness, well who knows things would change.
With human extinction problems, the current answer has been to build up. That works, really, and it makes for beautiful developed cities, but there is still overpopulation in India and China! Why is this? If you know the geographic phrase "The rich get richer and the poor have more kids", then you may be familiar with this. Poor families need more children to do more survival farming, but they are still not able to feed them more than the bare minimum, and those kids each have their own children, and it grows extremely quickly. If, say, a more developed government was there to help its citizens instead of dictating the country, this issue wouldn't be happening. In addition, even if this problem would still exist with a helpful government, large apartment buildings or multi-houses can be build with new technologies and help to reduce the overcrowding population in places such as India or China.
The final statement that I want to make clear:
Whatever harms technology will bring due to man's unjust intentions can be reversed and sent flying in the opposite direction as long as attention is brought to the problem.
This example is shown well with the evolution of commercial automobiles and the cutting down (and rebuilding) of forestry around the world.
I gave an example of one animal, great for scientists who are figuring out ways to return animals. But we're not losing just one animal, we're losing tons of animals at a fast rate. This contention alone should win me the entire debate. Same thing with the forest argument. I feel like if you pull across all of my previous arguments from the previous two speeches you should be able to see my point that while things may or may not be preserved.. we are still losing things at a greater rate than we are keeping them.
I agree that education has changed for the better, that isn't my argument. My argument is that kids are more ineffective not only in classrooms, but in everyday life. Communication has been hindered greatly.
Yes it is a new frontier in jobs, a new frontier does not mean we benefit from it more than before. We still had jobs and careers before technological expansion.
clean cars are a great thing, they impact the environment a lot less.. I'm aware, but right now in an economy that's not at it's best in the United States.. we can't afford these cars. Almost everyone I know (living in the Midwestern part of the states) can't really afford clean cars.. green cars for example are extremely expensive and there is almost no one who can afford it.
There is still little being about the issue of extinction.. steps take place, but just looking from a real-world perspective we see that so much of the earth is in demise whether it be: Animals who are important to our survival, forests, depletion of the ozone. I've really stressed this in the debate. I think I should win on those arguments if nothing else. Not to mention we're at risk of our own extinction because of these things.
And I don't even want to really discuss terrorism, I think it's implied that carelessness and lack of cooperation has continued (otherwise we wouldn't be so heavily targeted)
ANYONE VOTING ON THIS.. VOTE ON THIS FINAL POINT I WANT TO BRING ACROSS:
-Your arguments look like this throughout the entire debate; "Yes technology does some bad, but it also does good." I'm saying, "we were fine before technology because we didn't create bad things.. and the good things are not a necessity for living." A lot of his arguments (and I pointed this out in the last speech) go around the premise that we need to better learn to manage the way we use technology. Empirically speaking, we aren't willing to learn to manage it in an effective and safe way.
Please vote for the con based on my arguments from all 3 speeches.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.