The Student Room Group

Nature or Technology?

I was watching 'Reign of Fire' last night and it got me thinking about all these futuristic scenarios we've seen in the movies recently. They all seem to depict the human race coming up against some kind of peril, but these perils seem to split quite nicely into Nature and Technology.

For example: The Day After Tomorrow - the world is hit by massive storms etc. Climate change threatens the extinction of the human race (which we all know may actually happen). NATURE.
or...
The Matrix (yes I know, this may be far fetched) - the world is taken over by machines due to they human race's need to develop new technology. TECHNOLOGY.

Which will it be? In the future, will we be controlled by nature, or technology?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
What about human arrogance and stupidity?... that will be our downfall.
Reply 2
Indus1986
What about human arrogance and stupidity?... that will be our downfall.


i suppose that applies to both really...
Reply 3
What about what happens when all of fossil fuel, like oil run out?
The end of suburbia?
Probably not dragons.

Nanotechnology developments provoked a fear for a while that the Universe would be reduced to grey sludge by ever-multiplying nanorobots. Or something. This, together with the Matrix, suggests that we should be wary of any technology that appears not to be fully under our control. Creating an AI consciousness, as in the Matrix prequel, could give rise to a rival and utterly incomprehensible intelligence. Asimov's laws of robotics spring to mind - I think there are three of them, but however many: he proposes that laws be programmed into every hypothetical robot forbidding them to harm humans. A kind of morality, in fact.

One scenario that could feasibly happen is the Armageddon/Deep Impact one. And there is absolutely nothing humanity could do about it at present.

However, I think the most likely one, and one that would not make a good dramatic film, is everybody's favourite - climate change. Through our chronic and irreversible stupidity, humanity is sooner or later going to wreck this planet beyond repair, dramatically reducing its capacity to support life. That's if we don't wipe ourselves out in a thermonuclear war first.

If international attitudes remain as they are, I expect this war will start when the oil finally runs out. As human civilisation begins its final collapse, those countries that continue to demand that nonexistent oil reserves be released will eventually lose patience and resort to violence, and we will wipe ourselves off the face of the Universe in a colossal cataclysm of our own making.
Reply 5
Being an optimist, I'll take the controversial view that everything will be just fine in the future. No cyborgs running around killing people and using them as batteries and no natural disasters killing billions of people in one go. Could that future be possible?
Reply 6
Agent Smith

However, I think the most likely one, and one that would not make a good dramatic film, is everybody's favourite - climate change. Through our chronic and irreversible stupidity, humanity is sooner or later going to wreck this planet beyond repair, dramatically reducing its capacity to support life. That's if we don't wipe ourselves out in a thermonuclear war first.

If international attitudes remain as they are, I expect this war will start when the oil finally runs out. As human civilisation begins its final collapse, those countries that continue to demand that nonexistent oil reserves be released will eventually lose patience and resort to violence, and we will wipe ourselves off the face of the Universe in a colossal cataclysm of our own making.


Hear Hear. Sounds about exaclty right. It would make quite good film, the only thing to figure out now is a timescale for these events... :biggrin:
Reply 7
~Raven~
I was watching 'Reign of Fire' last night and it got me thinking about all these futuristic scenarios we've seen in the movies recently. They all seem to depict the human race coming up against some kind of peril, but these perils seem to split quite nicely into Nature and Technology.

For example: The Day After Tomorrow - the world is hit by massive storms etc. Climate change threatens the extinction of the human race (which we all know may actually happen). NATURE.
or...
The Matrix (yes I know, this may be far fetched) - the world is taken over by machines due to they human race's need to develop new technology. TECHNOLOGY.

Which will it be? In the future, will we be controlled by nature, or technology?

I think it's more appropriate to say Nature or Humans. Afterall technology is what we produce.
I think we will ultimately be the cause of our own distruction, but we are self (its in our nature) and will care more for ourselves than our posterity. Therefore the people who cares for conservation and environment will always be in the minority, and most of the time people will realise and change their ways far too late. We have created the means to destroy ourselves with our own hands, e.g. the atomic bomb. It may end with war. But I think it's destruction of our planet rather than our technology doing the destruction. I don't think we would let technology get out of hand. E.g., the film Artifical Intelligence by Steven Spielberg (excellent film) shows that we will always fear and be aware of our creation and what it can do.
However, there is the possiblity that, as mentioned, a meterior will hit us or we live until the end of the lifetime of the Sun. But I think the chances of that is slimmer.
Or if you believe that little green men will come and zap us with their little ray guns, that's also a possiblity. (E.g. in War Of The Worlds (terrible film).)
One thing I'm sure of, once we're gone, Insects rule the Earth!!!
Reply 8
TheVlad
Being an optimist, I'll take the controversial view that everything will be just fine in the future. No cyborgs running around killing people and using them as batteries and no natural disasters killing billions of people in one go. Could that future be possible?

It's beautiful, but rose-tinted. Everything in our lifetime may be fine but if we're talking about how the world would end... it's not going to be fine, is it? It's just not possible.
However, I also believe that one can believe what they want to believe in if that will make them a better person. And since we're all finding examples from films, here is one from Secondhand Lions: "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honor, virtue, and courage mean everything; that money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Doesn't matter if they're true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing in."
It's more likely to be climatic changes that finally brings the human population to its knees. The Matrix kind of idea that machines would take over humans seems to be fascinating but highly impossible... I just can't comprehend how machines can develop an intelligent mind.
Reply 10
~Raven~
For example: The Day After Tomorrow - the world is hit by massive storms etc. Climate change threatens the extinction of the human race (which we all know may actually happen). NATURE.
or...


what about the effect of technology on climate?
To be fair it'll be a combination as it always is.

I wouldn't worry about nanotech at the moment, the science is a lot less advanced than most commentators would have you believe.
but as we become more technogically advanced we increase the likelihood of successfully neutralising threats caused by technology.
darkenergy
but as we become more technogically advanced we increase the likelihood of successfully neutralising threats caused by technology.


How do you arrive at that conclusion? As we become more technologically advanced we come up with ways to neutralise existing threats, but we also create new threats that we cannot neutralise.
ChemistBoy
How do you arrive at that conclusion? As we become more technologically advanced we come up with ways to neutralise existing threats, but we also create new threats that we cannot neutralise.

But as we create new threats we are also advancing our knowledge and technology which becomes more capable to neutralise those threats.
darkenergy
But as we create new threats we are also advancing our knowledge and technology which becomes more capable to neutralise those threats.


Not neccesarily. Technology is a guessing game in which we use the current state of knowledge in science to construct devices that should "improve" how we live. However, history has shown that new and unforseen problems do arise out of such technological developments that are difficult to predict, especially as these are often from the reaction of the natural world and our own bodies to such technological developments. Your assertion implies that we are significantly close to the knowledge of everything, which I am not so sure of.
Reply 16
I read in New Scientist that scientists are trying to blend the two together to make "organic" technology, which sounds fantastic, although somewhat stretched.
ChemistBoy
Not neccesarily. Technology is a guessing game in which we use the current state of knowledge in science to construct devices that should "improve" how we live. However, history has shown that new and unforseen problems do arise out of such technological developments that are difficult to predict, especially as these are often from the reaction of the natural world and our own bodies to such technological developments. Your assertion implies that we are significantly close to the knowledge of everything, which I am not so sure of.

I do not imply that we are significant close to the knowledge of everything, in fact, I suggest the contrary. It is the because we are not even close to 1% of possible knowledge in the universe that allows us to discover more about the unknown and thus becoming more technogically advanced. Without technology we would have more problems than we would have without. Yes, technological developments are becoming more unpredictable, it is the uncertain and tentative nature that enables us to solve future problems that may arise; on the other hand, if the technology yet to be discovered is predictable, then we would not possess solutions to solve such problems.
darkenergy
I do not imply that we are significant close to the knowledge of everything, in fact, I suggest the contrary. It is the because we are not even close to 1% of possible knowledge in the universe that allows us to discover more about the unknown and thus becoming more technogically advanced. Without technology we would have more problems than we would have without. Yes, technological developments are becoming more unpredictable, it is the uncertain and tentative nature that enables us to solve future problems that may arise; on the other hand, if the technology yet to be discovered is predictable, then we would not possess solutions to solve such problems.


How can one have strategies to cope with the unpredictable?
ChemistBoy
How can one have strategies to cope with the unpredictable?

We don't unfortunately but we can adapt to the situation, however. Also, if the technology is predictable then it wouldn't be as useful as technology that is more unpredictable.