Ship of Fools: Is Modern Society returning to a Primitive State?

Thread: Is Modern Society returning to a Primitive State? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023962

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

This is an offshoot of the various anti-science threads floating around the Ship.
In earlier times, much of technology was readily understandable. True, the average Roman might not have understood materials well enough to construct a massive arch, but the general principals were not out of reach. As technology has become more complex, the average person more accepts its application than understands its principals. How many of those who happily slap on the telly have the vaguest clue as to how the people appear in the little box? Is it any wonder people deny science or happily ingest the lastest quackery?
Arthur C. Clarke's statement

quote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

appears to be more accurate every day.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

You know, if I were to give a (perhaps ill-considered) answer to your question, I'd say that if the technology isn't understood, it's because people can't be arsed to try. The miasma, if not downright cynicism or nihilism in many, particularly many young folks, is frightening.

It's been my thoughts for quite a while that America doesn't have education problems, or economic problems, or social problems - if indeed, we are becoming more primitive (and I think we are), it is because we have moral and morale problems.

Blessings,

Tom

/not trying to stir up a hornet's nest

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I heard that if I were try learning from scratch how an iPhone, and it's component parts, actually work it would take years of personal study.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I read recently about the last time when one person had the ability to know everything. I can't remember when it was (predictably!), but it was a long time ago.

Today we have no hope of understanding the totality of any field of study. The totality of what humanity knows is continually increasing, but the amount that a single person can possibly know is decreasing. The vast majority of us operate within a paradigm of which we have the vaguest of understanding.

For me, the worry is not that we are in a Primitive State, but that we totter on the precipice of one. Our advanced thinking means that we have neglected to learn basic things, and I worry that in a not-unimaginably-changed future, we're suddenly going to wake up and discover that knowing the correct sequence of button pressing is an insufficient skill for continued existence.

[ 15. October 2012, 20:13: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Depends how primitive and how suddenly. I can remember the world before computers, mobile phones or digital anythings, before even TV or central heating as commonplace. I retain fading skills like laying a fire or making clothes. But if it came to the post-apocalyptic wasteland, I doubt if I would do any better - because there is so much I don't know: how to interact with any kind of machinery for example.

I think my level is round about the current situation - Slight Degree of Economic Hardship But With Functional Infrastructure.

But yes, it doesn't do to assume that it will all just be there, that there'll always be an Internet, or oil, or endless electrical power, or enough fresh water, or plenty of food.

[ 15. October 2012, 21:45: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Oh, come on.

People know exactly what they need to know to make things work. Basic repairs and service on a (pre-computerization) car is one thing, and the heavy machinery involved is a lot more forgiving of learning and dumb mistakes than, say, an iPhone.

I'd say the percentage of the population that can accurately describe the engineering of an internal combustion engine is about the same today as it was 50 years ago, and so is the percentage of the population that could organize the building of such a device given Neolithic technology to do it.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

All I know is that I'd be in the other 50%.

What do you think about the theory, which became popular recently, that the human race will eventually split into two - a superior species (very intelligent) and a sub-species (very primitive)?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Well, "intelligent" and "primitive" don't refer to the same traits, do they?

I mean, intelligence is not a category that is exclusive to Homo sapiens, and primitivity doesn't seem to affect intelligence. A person may be ignorant of all kinds of knowledge, but that doesn't mean he's not intelligent. Likewise, a person can be able to memorize all kinds of facts and figures and not be able to do anything constructive with them.

So perhaps a super-smart species and a super-stupid one will eventually develop, but I doubt we'll be able to tell them apart by quizzing them on how much they know about engineering.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

I can disassemble a VW beetle circa 1968 and reassemble it fairly readily, albeit rustily.

I won't touch my 2006 Highlander Hybrid. Okay, I'll change the brake pads, and i could change the oil.

Why the different. Well, there's a GADJILLION amps of power going places in my current engine that would smoke my ass into a brisket in a millisecond. I don't even want to bother. Yes, I could. No I won't. In addition, I couldn't imagine how complex the fuel/hybrid/continuously variable transmission systems are in the car.

The best analogy I can make is this. I COULD learn to fix a jet engine. I know the THEORY, but I won't. My hybrid is, in many ways, more complex than a jet engine.

I built my own desktop PC, and maintain it. I won't touch my laptop (other than to add memory) and I CAN'T touch my soon to be iPad.

The list of these things goes on and on. Yes, I am a "Maker" as they say, but there isa LOT of things that I won't even TRY to void the warranty on nowadays. Too complex.

However, I DO understand them, mostly.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
. . . the average person more accepts its [technology's] application than understands its principals. How many of those who happily slap on the telly have the vaguest clue as to how the people appear in the little box? Is it any wonder people deny science or happily ingest the lastest quackery?
Arthur C. Clarke's statement
quote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
appears to be more accurate every day.

I guess I'm bemused by the assumption buried in your question that lack of technological-chops is somehow equal to "primitiveness."

First, it's likely we all have a skewed view of the past, from those imagining former Golden Ages of this-and-that to those prone to sniggering over antique notions about wandering wombs and the universe being composed of 4 elements and maps with "Here there be dragons" warnings.

Who left us all this artistic, literary, and/or cultural-technological claptrap that we use to evaluate the past? Probably the same kinds of people creating these things today. Many present-day cultural "creators" of whatever stripe are, frankly, outliers. And they "outlie" in all directions and degrees, which means that some of them are pretty whacko, by their contemporaries' standards. Seems possible that this has always been the case.

Did Hippocrates' uterine teachings survive because they were right, or because he and/or his theories attracted supporters and devotees? Or because ancient manuscripts recording these were stored in the right conditions to ensure their survival, while other, far more advanced (and correct) material was lost to some natural or man-made disaster?

What was primitive in earlier times, and continues unabated to the present, is humanity's unfortunate penchant for turning some of its members into superstars -- some deservedly, some not -- in various fields. While this penchant has in fact preserved a magnificent legacy in many, perhaps most, disciplines, it's also preserved a fair amount of glurge.

Some of it we ooh and aah over simply because it's old.

The vast majority of the human race has always simply plodded, struggled, and/or danced along its own daily round without knowing much beyond what was needed for survival. Did the 13th-century serf know how to fasten his lord's armor on (much less forge a set)? Could the 17th-century scullery maid use curling irons to dress her mistress's hair, or tat a lace edging for her gown?

Most of us these days continue plodding, struggling, and dancing along. If and when all the "magic" suddenly goes POOF, our efforts to survive will change, but they'll hardly end.

Meanwhile, though, we'll continue to breed outliers whose ideas and inventions will make alterations to our efforts. And we'll continue to follow practices both marvelous and and mistaken, convinced they're beneficial, or that at least they make us waaay coool. We're just hairless-but-ambitious apes.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
All I know is that I'd be in the other 50%.

What do you think about the theory, which became popular recently, that the human race will eventually split into two - a superior species (very intelligent) and a sub-species (very primitive)?

I think that very largely already exists - with the privileged few with access to vast amounts of intellect and science and knowledge and a massive number of people living 'very primitive' lives.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Methinks 'primitive' is being confused with specialisiation. Of course modern society is becoming more and more specialised. There is only a certain amount of information any one human brain can hold. As the amount of information continues to grow, the percentage of it that any one brain can hold shrinks.

It's denominator that's growing, not the numerator that's shrinking.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I guess I'm bemused by the assumption buried in your question that lack of technological-chops is somehow equal to "primitiveness."

Not exactly. Not thinking everyone should know everything about what they use. Just the basic principals.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

First, it's likely we all have a skewed view of the past, from those imagining former Golden Ages of this-and-that to those prone to sniggering over antique notions about wandering wombs and the universe being composed of 4 elements and maps with "Here there be dragons" warnings.

People are the same mix of smart, lazy, stupid, etc. that they have been since Homo sapiens settled out of the mix.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Did the 13th-century serf know how to fasten his lord's armor on (much less forge a set)? Could the 17th-century scullery maid use curling irons to dress her mistress's hair, or tat a lace edging for her gown?

Ever looked at a suit of armour? Not rocket science to work out how to buckle it. And forge it? Likely the lord had no more knowledge of how to do that than the serf. The blacksmith did that.
A 13th century serf could likely build his own shelter. Take a mental trip outside and look at your neighbors, your fellow townsfolk; could they?
The more we become dependent on technology, the more we seem to lose in basic understanding.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Methinks 'primitive' is being confused with specialisiation.

A large percentage of jobs require little specialisation. Even for those that do, are you saying an accountant has no room in her/his brain to understand an exhaust leak?
I find it amusing that even those with no faith in science show great faith in technology. And faith it is, as there is little understanding.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Did the 13th-century serf know how to fasten his lord's armor on (much less forge a set)? Could the 17th-century scullery maid use curling irons to dress her mistress's hair, or tat a lace edging for her gown?
Ever looked at a suit of armour? Not rocket science to work out how to buckle it. And forge it? Likely the lord had no more knowledge of how to do that than the serf. The blacksmith did that.

Exactly my point. And even if the serf knew how to buckle the bits, he wouldn't necessarily know the right order in which to buckle them on, or be certain which gizmo went on the lord's left shin and which went on the right.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A 13th century serf could likely build his own shelter. Take a mental trip outside and look at your neighbors, your fellow townsfolk; could they?

Certainly my neighbors could build shelters. So could I.

The result might look more like a 4th-century dirt hovel than a 13th-century cot, and would certainly be cramped, awkward, chilly, and damp. It would have neither running water nor electricity and would utterly fail to meet contemporary building codes.

But we could, in some dire emergency, throw together something to keep us from (most) of the elements, plus we'd have available to us a vitally important skill enabling us to improve on our initial efforts: we all know how to read, and there's a library full of printed information not far from here. The serf would not have this advantage. Neither, however, is reading dependent on any very fancy technology.

We'd promptly start acquiring more advanced skills and put them to use improving our shelter so as to survive the coming winter. To do this more quickly and effectively, we'd probably divide up the learning we needed: we'd each start specializing.

That said, vast swathes of our current technology answer to convenience and comfort, not necessarily survival. Most of us simply accept what's available to us (that we can also afford) without trying to understand or reproduce it. In short, we do what we need to survive, and let others worry about the rest. When those "others" stop bothering for whatever reason, we lose comforts and conveniences, and survival becomes much more challenging, but hardly impossible.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Sorry; neglected to add that for me, "primitive" enters the picture when, instead of cooperating in order to divvy up the work (and challenges),
we start insisting on keeping our skills and knowledge to ourselves, forcing every individual to discover everything on his/her own, from scratch.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not thinking everyone should know everything about what they use. Just the basic principals.

But why? What purpose would me knowing anything about my iPhone other than what I need to know in order to use it serve?

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

It occurred to me recently that handwriting is becoming a thing of the past. My father had near copperplate writing, and could keep immaculate account books. I rarely write anything except my signature with a pen - and I am a writer!

Is it possible that in a generation or two there will be no handwriting at all? And then, if all the computers and similar technology crashed, people would not be able to communicate by letter or write reports for work!

Not long before I finished working for someone other than me, our office systems crashed for a week. As a result, the whole team was effectively idle. We could answer the phone, and action a few things off the top of our heads, but we had no access to key files or financial records and no way of producing letters, e-mails or other written communication. It was scary. Back in the early 1970s, when I started work, this simply couldn't have happened. The worst that could happen was a power cut that would knock out lights, electric typewriters and electric adding machines. We had candles and manual alternatives!

[ 18. October 2012, 11:39: Message edited by: Sighthound ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I read recently about the last time when one person had the ability to know everything. I can't remember when it was (predictably!), but it was a long time ago.

Never in human history. People love to underestimate the amount of knowledge and skill other people's way of life needs to work. Especially when thoise other people are our ancestors.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Methinks 'primitive' is being confused with specialisiation.

That sounds like a biologist speaking [Biased]

Because of course in evolutionary biology "primitive" is the opposite of "specialised", and both are relative to each other. So we can say that human hands are more primitive than human feet, and horses hooves are more specialised than either.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I read recently about the last time when one person had the ability to know everything. I can't remember when it was (predictably!), but it was a long time ago.
Never in human history. People love to underestimate the amount of knowledge and skill other people's way of life needs to work. Especially when thoise other people are our ancestors.

I definitely read that, and unless you are living inside my head I don't know how you'd know otherwise.

It did seem unlikely, but then I suppose it is possible that what counted as human knowledge before the enlightenment was considerably less than we might imagine.

[ 18. October 2012, 14:59: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I definitely read that....

I'm sure you read it! Its just that the person who wrote it was wrong!

I've read references to "Renaissance Man" the idea that up to sometime arojnd the invention of printing one person could ahve read everything that was wort reading (well, everything in Europe anyway, they used to ignore Persia and India and China...) But it wasn;t true. There was far too much to read and know even then.

I read an institutional history of the Late Roman Empire once. (By which they meant 3rd/4th/5th/6th centuries - Western European historians tend to stop calling the Emnpire "Roman" and switch to the name "Byzantine" sometime between Arcadius and Heraclitus) According to the preface the author wanted to compile a sort of index or sourcebook or bibliography to every extant contemporary text that had any bearing on the government and legal institutions and the army and so on. He started off thinking that he could read and translate them himself. Twenty-odd years later there was more still to read than there had been when he started - he hadn;t even read all the Greek and Latin stuff and he hadn't reckoned with the immense literature in Syriac/Aramaic - mostly religious (monks and rabbis) but all of it evidence. And then there was Coptic. And we were jsut starting to discover large amounts of papyri.

And that is just the timy about surviving after 1500 years - still far too much for any one person to know all of.

Now it might be that from our high position of grandeur we look back and think that all that stuff all those monks and rabbis and copts and court poets wrote about wasn;t real knowledge. Just unimportant stuff like law and theology and hagiography and elegy. We have Proper Knowledge of Economics and Finance and Motor Mechanics and Atonal Music all those Really Important Things. But back then it was worth knowing about saints and classical poetry and Roman jurisprudence. They constructed their entire civilisation around such stuff (and they had engineers as well of course - if they didn't how did they build all those buildings?)

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I heard that if I were try learning from scratch how an iPhone, and it's component parts, actually work it would take years of personal study.

Worse than that: I suspect that it's downright impossible unless you are privy to trade secrets.

One of the most knowledgeable authorities in the the field of archival recorded sound has said that we can look at the schematic for, say, a CD player, and at some crucial center location there will be an indication of where the manufacturer's proprietary chip goes. The chip itself is a little black box. When the manufacturer decides not to manufacture it anymore, the world is screwed: planned obsolescence. This is a significant challenge to his metier.

Are we returning to a primitive state? Just look at how alienated adolescents are decorated and what they listen to. Primitivism is cooool.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

True dat.

Each individual manages to know pretty much just what s/he needs to know to get along on (plus maybe a little extra for conversation-stoking and debate-provoking), and leaves other areas to other individuals. Only together can we profess to "know everything," and even then that's limited to what we collectively have discovered, leaving us with vast swathes of ignorance yet to explore.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I've read references to "Renaissance Man" the idea that up to sometime arojnd the invention of printing one person could ahve read everything that was wort reading (well, everything in Europe anyway, they used to ignore Persia and India and China...) But it wasn;t true. There was far too much to read and know even then.

It was said that Leibniz knew "everything." and was the last man who could. In the Renaissance, the canon was relatively well established: the books considered important or worthwhile were the classics. Wikipedia's article on the Biblioteca Colombina in Seville is rather sketchy and doesn't mention one innovation of its early custodians: they saw fit to collect ephemera. This was very unusual at the time. Now we cherish these relatively everyday, throwaway items as unique primary sources. This difference in approach has itself vastly expanded what is of interest to a curious person.

[ 18. October 2012, 16:48: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is it any wonder people deny science or happily ingest the lastest quackery?
Arthur C. Clarke's statement
quote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
appears to be more accurate every day.

There is a difference that negative references to science rarely mention. The life blood of science and most engineering is peer-reviewed publication in public journals. Maybe you lack the knowledge to understand but it isn't occult - there is no 'secret teaching'. OK there are exceptions: privately funded research may be hidden, but the vast majority is out there.

I'm aware of the shortcomings of the journal publishing process but broadly even if something seems like magic the ideas behind it can be found. If you learn the language you can know the mathematical models used, the experiments carried out, the assumptions made. And you will see the energy people with different views put into trying to prove ideas wrong as well as right. In many cases you can read the about experiments that didn't work. Even Google scholar will give you citation counts so you have a measure of the significance of a paper.

So though I don't understand how my smartphone works I'm fairly confident magic isn't involved. I trust that people who do understand could, in theory, reproduce whatever it does. That said, in the case of research which isn't publicly available (like pharmaceuticals ) I'm much more likely to suspect snake oil.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Some of what we are lamenting was bemoaned by C.P. Snow in The Two Cultures way back in the early 1960s: namely, that scientists and humanists don't understand each other or value each other's work. It was a bifurcation that my undergrad school, which took (and still takes) liberal education seriously, wanted its students to overcome.

Part of the problem is that a smaller fraction of students today are interested in liberal education, and even some of those who do want it fear (justifiably) that they can't afford it. Everything must be sacrificed to acquiring an expertise (perhaps in the rather mind-numbing sense) and credentials that will enable one to earn a living wage. It's hard to blame students these days for such apprehension. But what they are getting is training rather than education. A college degree might leave one almost as ignorant in all other ways as someone without a college degree is apt to be.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Sorry; neglected to add that for me, "primitive" enters the picture when, instead of cooperating in order to divvy up the work (and challenges),
we start insisting on keeping our skills and knowledge to ourselves, forcing every individual to discover everything on his/her own, from scratch.

the evolutionary urge to survive would be paramount, wouldn't it, so altruism would quickly be exttremely important.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0