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)
I think differently than that.
yup...I developed that as a working definition myself.
a human with no technology is a rotting chunk of meat.
we are the product of technology and it is incorporated in us. The more technolgy we assimilate the more human we become..
We have different perspectives on what being human is, I feel.
Your perspective, is nihilistic. (in my opinion).
There is no room for beauty or aesthetics - its all function. I think very differently than that, and getting back to Tolkien, why he perfectly sums up the human v the non human.
Being human is appreciating of beauty, being happy (or sad) - but feeling.
Are you an Ork, deep down? lolo
who says technology is not beautiful?
I certainly didn't.
it takes technology to make art..or record beauty that already exists in nature.
you misspelled orc.
You said Your perspective, is nihilistic. (in my opinion).
Nihilism = rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless.
certainly NOT. Your opinion is wrong.
ZAP is my moral principal. Every other (so-called) moral principal is derived from that. IF they really meant it..but they do not.
You'd have to define what you mean by meaningless...
before you do it might be instructive to read about the monkeysphere, behavioral sinks, rat utopia, dunbar's number and The Iron Law of Bureaucracy
Technology most certainly can be beautiful. And is.
throwing mud paintings on a wall with your fingers doesn't require technology.
Recording beauty is recording something - technology - the beauty is the object you record.
LOLOL- my apologies on the misspelling - I hate it when people misspell my name ! lmao
You are correct - I apologize. (I'm just making my first coffee- give me 10 minutes, and I will attempt a better post )
apology accepted but not required.
We are discussing ideas....not personalities.
Address the post and not the poster
...anything goes if you do it that way.
Expect (proportional) retaliation if you attack me.
I just woke up myself (sleep issues)
I've only had two or three cups of coffee so far ...I'm making a new pot.
.
Where are you if I might ask?