Now, there isnt one, but that doesnt change the principle - at some pointing in the past there were humans - with zero technology -that made some - for the first time- in the history of humans.
Ergo, technology has to be defined by humans - unless you surrender yourself to the opposite paradigm, which is an extremely pessimistic perspective.
In doing so, you are delegating your authority to a mindless technology.
Technology uses us, not us use technology ( as can been by the slavish non productive use of smartphones, computer games etc)
chimps use rudimentary technologies- it doesn't define who they are - they are still chimps - if you took away their ' poking down holes, sticks' - they would still be chimps
that is debateable
chimps have a very early form of technology...as you say.
if they did not have it they would not be chimps..they would be something else.
but we're not talking about chimps
we're speaking of humans...
explain to me what a human with ZERO technology would be like.
To not accept humans beings ,never having a technology is not logical.
at some specific point in the dark past, there was this one synaptic jump at a certain point in time that made use of a technology, for the first time.
It cannot be any other way.
(- on the assumption we are not including biological attributes like opposable thumbs as a technology).
I grew up on a farm - and I KNOW, if the climate was congenial, and there was water - human beings could survive without technology. - I could- even today.
(And I'm sure their knowledge of their environment far outstripped anything I will ever know)
why is it not logical.
why are you not answering my question?
you could NOT survive without technology...technology is a pre requisit for your existence.
NewFlash...technology consists of EVERYTHING that you acquire after birth.
Can you speak at birth?
no?
Well then...language is a technolgy...that might explain why there are so many languages..they were invented.
That gave us a BIG boost. Writing gave us another big boost.
so tell me again...tell me how you would exist in the wild with not only no language but no understanding of the concept of language?
your definition is different that mine. ( or dictionary.com, or merriam websters)
For practical purpose - I - literally - on my own -if the weather was congenial, and there was water (plants, insects, and, animals) -could survive - 100%
If I could - I'm sure our non technologically friendly ancestors could - and a million time better than myself.
The definition of everything from birth is technology , isn't correct. ( from what i see, and from my personal understanding - maybe just a difference of definitions)
in which case - with your definition - we are nothing more than a conglomerate of technologies, and the melding of man machine is just another progression in human evolution?
Now, there isnt one, but that doesnt change the principle - at some pointing in the past there were humans - with zero technology -that made some - for the first time- in the history of humans.
Ergo, technology has to be defined by humans - unless you surrender yourself to the opposite paradigm, which is an extremely pessimistic perspective.
In doing so, you are delegating your authority to a mindless technology.
Technology uses us, not us use technology ( as can been by the slavish non productive use of smartphones, computer games etc)
explain to me what a human with zero technology would be like. It doesn't matter if they currently exist or not.
chimps use rudimentary technologies- it doesn't define who they are - they are still chimps - if you took away their ' poking down holes, sticks' - they would still be chimps
that is debateable
chimps have a very early form of technology...as you say.
if they did not have it they would not be chimps..they would be something else.
but we're not talking about chimps
we're speaking of humans...
explain to me what a human with ZERO technology would be like.
To not accept humans beings ,never having a technology is not logical.
It cannot be any other way.
(- on the assumption we are not including biological attributes like opposable thumbs as a technology).
I grew up on a farm - and I KNOW, if the climate was congenial, and there was water - human beings could survive without technology. - I could- even today.
(And I'm sure their knowledge of their environment far outstripped anything I will ever know)
why is it not logical.
why are you not answering my question?
you could NOT survive without technology...technology is a pre requisit for your existence.
NewFlash...technology consists of EVERYTHING that you acquire after birth.
Can you speak at birth?
no?
Well then...language is a technolgy...that might explain why there are so many languages..they were invented.
That gave us a BIG boost. Writing gave us another big boost.
so tell me again...tell me how you would exist in the wild with not only no language but no understanding of the concept of language?
your definition is different that mine. ( or dictionary.com, or merriam websters)
For practical purpose - I - literally - on my own -if the weather was congenial, and there was water (plants, insects, and, animals) -could survive - 100%
If I could - I'm sure our non technologically friendly ancestors could - and a million time better than myself.
The definition of everything from birth is technology , isn't correct. ( from what i see, and from my personal understanding - maybe just a difference of definitions)
I think differently than that.