Will the world return to times of “sticks and stones” or will technology update more?

Could you tell me why different forms or cancer have emerged and the idea of heart disease has dramatically risen ?

Like I said, disease and death seem more prevalent than they used to be, and although causes of specific types of cancer and heart disease has increased along with type II diabetes, generally the reason why is because we have more statistics and facts about them because we have been able to carry out more research and are able to diagnose things at a quicker rate. This is due to technology.

Although processed food has become a normal part of lifestyle for a lot of people, advancements in technology have allowed many diseases and conditions to be treated and practically eradicated. This includes things like TB and yellow fever to name a few. These diseases are usually only seen in third world countries and that's because medical technology is not available there, showing that technology is beneficial in that aspect.

To return to a 'caveman' period of time would completely remove basic health care, so infections from cuts and from eating food etc would be more dangerous and life threatening than they are today.

Because we're better at working out what's going wrong.

Years ago you'd have died when you were 35 and it would have been a mystery. Now we know what it was and can probably cure it.

Medical advancements have been made because technology has helped us understand the body better, but also because technology has helped us destroy the body better - a huge number of medical advancements come through war and conflict.

Although you make sense, I say that technology has made disease worse.

If you look at the period after the industrial revolution, you have toxic chemical waste infecting our water supplies etc: so in the east, they be fighting cholera and TB but in the west we are fighting heart disease and liver failure etc

But this is why it's important to allow technology to advance further, so that we can improve the technology already here so that they aren't harmful to our health. To not let technology develop and advance would mean any problems affecting health or the environment would remain.

That’s not the only reason why different forms of cancer have risen. In this modern day and age, nuclear tech has increased our chances of mutation. The depletion of the ozone and mass migration have increased the likelihood of skin cancer etc... we cannot deny that tech has also ruined lives for its own profit making schemes

So my question is : are we updating our tech because we are making new diseases ???

No. I'd say the reason we are updating tech is because we want more effective treatment and earlier diagnoses of diseases and conditions that are already here. Any diseases considered 'new' are probably just diseases that have been discovered because of the technology that we have.

That’s not the only reason why different forms of cancer have risen. In this modern day and age, nuclear tech has increased our chances of mutation. The depletion of the ozone and mass migration have increased the likelihood of skin cancer etc... we cannot deny that tech has also ruined lives for its own profit making schemes

I disagree. Nuclear technology in itself hasn't increased our chances of mutation, unless you're a resident in Chernobyl or Nagasaki - but we aren't due a nuclear attack our way, not in the foreseeable future at least. Nuclear energy is very efficient and is the most realistic alternative to fossil fuels, many studies have shown there to be no link between incidences of childhood cancers and proximity to nuclear power plants, and it's use is so limited worldwide that I can't see how you can argue that it's increased mutagenic rates.

The depletion of the ozone, as you can see from any map, is pretty much restricted to the poles. Seen as very little of the total human population lives at the poles I can't see how you can say that its increased our chances of skin cancer. If anything, science and technology allowed us to identify the problem and take action and as a result the ozone layer is recovering. I'm not sure I understand the link between mass migration and skin cancer either?

Technology can have its pitfalls but the sheer scale of positive impacts that have arisen and continue to arise shouldn't be swept under the rug.

A recent report on the bbc documented that a school in England had infected over 10 students with cancer after finding industrial pollutants in water.

Ozone depletion isn’t just restricted to the poles
After a study in Harvard:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120726142204.htm

I haven't been able to find your first report, but I agree that high concentrations of industrial pollutants in water has the potential to be carcinogenic regardless. Not sure how this links to nuclear technology though. Nuclear waste isn't as hazardous as the films make it out to be and can be safely disposed of without posing a threat to people. Nuclear power plants are under strict regulations regarding its disposal and if geological storage is not used, the level of contaminants in water sources is monitored so it's below a threshold. In fact, surely technology is important in that it can be used to improve water quality. Just look at the Janicki Omniprocessor, water filtration and decontamination technology and so on. If such technology was implemented, then water quality would drastically improve and you wouldn't need to worry about the associated impacts of bad water.

Your article wasn't in a lot of detail, so I looked to DEFRA. "The major issue is that the stratosphere will most probably cool in response to climate change, therefore preserving over a longer time period the conditions that promote chlorine-caused ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere, particularly in polar regions. At present, the amplitude and extent of such a cooling, and therefore the delay in the recovery of the ozone layer, still have to be assessed." - Again, reduction in the ozone is restricted to the poles, so won't really pose a risk to the majority of the global population. Furthermore, the global action to phase out CFC's and ozone depleting chemicals means that the concentrations of ozone depleting radicals will decrease in the future anyway so the effects aren't going to be as drastic as the article makes them out to appear - surely that in itself shows the accomplishments of technology?

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/research/ozone-uv/moreinfo?view=deleption-climate-change