Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Learning2live · 31-35, M
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Well, "updated" is a purely chronological term, and "technology" is a very woolly word anyway, with both terms now so debased that they mean very little.
You can't though introduce something new into a particular area without automatically developing it, and "updating" it at the same time. Anyway, no-one would develop anything if the developments remain unused.
However, you don't give a cut-off date. Where are you counting from? Had nothing been exploited even if discovered, society could not possibly have progressed as it has. We'd certainly not be able to discuss it like this!
So where do we start, if we keep to purely practical, everyday examples?
The development of the portable telephone, or of its two-way radio precursor?
The development of the electronic computer (in Britain during WW2) or later the transistor (in 1960s America) which allowed the former to be far more powerful for a physically far smaller and more electrically efficient unit?
The development of steam power from the late 18th on, primarily by Newcomen and later, Watt? And later in the 19C, the development of the internal-combustion engine, using gas or liquid fuels?
Faraday's research into the links between electricity and magnetism, hence inventing the electric generator, transformer and motor?
Or thousands of years back, when Man discovered it is possible to reduce certain rocks - ores - to extract the metals they contain as chemical compounds?
Or indeed, humanity's most fundamental "technological" discovery of all, without which nothing else we know would be possible - how to control and use fire, or more accurately, heat?
You can't though introduce something new into a particular area without automatically developing it, and "updating" it at the same time. Anyway, no-one would develop anything if the developments remain unused.
However, you don't give a cut-off date. Where are you counting from? Had nothing been exploited even if discovered, society could not possibly have progressed as it has. We'd certainly not be able to discuss it like this!
So where do we start, if we keep to purely practical, everyday examples?
The development of the portable telephone, or of its two-way radio precursor?
The development of the electronic computer (in Britain during WW2) or later the transistor (in 1960s America) which allowed the former to be far more powerful for a physically far smaller and more electrically efficient unit?
The development of steam power from the late 18th on, primarily by Newcomen and later, Watt? And later in the 19C, the development of the internal-combustion engine, using gas or liquid fuels?
Faraday's research into the links between electricity and magnetism, hence inventing the electric generator, transformer and motor?
Or thousands of years back, when Man discovered it is possible to reduce certain rocks - ores - to extract the metals they contain as chemical compounds?
Or indeed, humanity's most fundamental "technological" discovery of all, without which nothing else we know would be possible - how to control and use fire, or more accurately, heat?
REMsleep · 41-45, F
@ArishMell I asked a similar question as you but in a less elaborate way. The OP says that if something is totally brand new and nothing like it exists then it can be developed but then never improved upon. But, like you this doesn't make sense to me because as you have said every new technology builds on the previous and humans cannot use any object without correcting or improving upon its use.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MasterofNone · 26-30, M
No new job creation. So keep check on the population.
Sales will slow down because everyone has the old stuff. So there'll be job loss as well.
It'll be good for the environment because less production means less carbon footprint.
Any new challenge such as climate change and rise in criminals will crush the society because the present technology wouldn't be updated enough to deal with the latest problems.
Sales will slow down because everyone has the old stuff. So there'll be job loss as well.
It'll be good for the environment because less production means less carbon footprint.
Any new challenge such as climate change and rise in criminals will crush the society because the present technology wouldn't be updated enough to deal with the latest problems.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
latinbutterfly · F
ShaythePanTransMan · 22-25, T
latinbutterfly · F
@REMsleep Well, I guess if new technology was [b]introduced[/b] but it just stayed the same. Like if the iPhone had never been updated since it was introduced in 2007.
REMsleep · 41-45, F
@latinbutterfly Ahhh got ya. Ummm funny enough I think that things might be a little bit better for us because we might still have some advantages of new things but not go into excessive hyperdrive on constantly updating what we have and trying to do more with technology. I think we do not have a good balance with technology right now.But this idea is so unrealistic that I cant truly imagine people not wanting to improve things or innovate.