David Attenborough....

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Like unnecessary versions of windows

That would have been a funny post if you understood irony or were capable of poking fun at yourself occasionally.

Anyway, no, don't confuse upset with pity. I can't even begin to imagine how people like you can manage to salvage any joy from life. You dislike everything around you and the world you live in.

If you genuinely believe all that stuff you typed you'd join the Amish, or perhaps the Darwells.

Indeed.

So you sit in front of a monitor, throw abuse in some vague way, all over a completely none offenseive post, and then try and tell us how were missing the joy of life?!

It doesn't work really, does it. Just makes you look a little keen to try and have a go at someone you don't like on the internet. Hamish and Reno will LOVE it.

Harry_Boyle

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that man will finish off man. Either through war or the effects of our resource usage on the world destroying our ability to live here.

The one question I do ponder is what do we need more of? Why do we need to keep progressing?

Let's take the western world for a moment. What are we currently missing that makes us feel the need to drain the worlds resources and leave nothing for future generations? I don't know. If it's a faster ipad, they can keep it or a mobile that can tell me my nephew has just had a poo, they can keep it.

The 3rd world certainly have stuff to strive for, however, we could share we we have with ample left for our own consumption. We just won't. The economic landscape determines we just need more and more "stuff".

Trains were a great invention. The car was a great invention. The computer, brilliant. But do we really need a new ipad or mobile phone that can control the TV from our office, or can tell us how fat we are today? Do we really need to throw such massive resources away after just 2 years in order to be able to use a new app on shiny new hardware that allows us to open the fridge door from the lounge?

We were talking about this the other day, and computers changed the world....but what have computers really changed in the last 5-10 years? Nothing of much importance. It's mostly facebook, tweeting and pretty pointless apps that just serve to make us even lazier and feed the need for the next upgraded device. Even the big computer plays like Dell are starting to struggle as Windows XP still does everything every business wants and business don't need computer upgrades anymore, hence Microsoft forces their software (and the hardware) to become redundant.

Computers changed the world, they bought us automation, safety, e-mail, communication. Now, we have mobiles in our pockets more powerful than computers 12 years ago....and what do we do with them? Post pictures of cats in sunglasses on facebook.

We've got what we need. The rest is simple greed.

I think you're missing the bigger picture. These tools start out as frivolous but then get used in business. My company uses smartphones for video conferencing so that we don't all have to travel miles for meetings - saving time and energy. We also use ipads and other tablets to access business software for employees who travel (such as the sales team).

If you go back to the dawn of home computing when hobbyists were building their own ZX80s and ZX81s and then moved onto mass produced computers such as the ZX Spectrum and Amstrad PCs, I dare say that some people thought that was a frivolous waste of time, but look where we are now.

It wasn't long ago that Silver bugs were on here saying that the Earth was running out of silver because of industry using it's superior conductivity for use in solar panels, etc. Now we have Graphene which is a man made material and is superior to silver for high conductivity and low power loss.

Graphene will probably be used in consumer electronics initially because you can sell a lot of units quickly to cover the initial developments costs, but then it will show up in all sorts of things - just like computers have (CAT scans, robotic surgical equipment, etc.)

If we have all we need and should stop developing stuff, then pop along to an Oncology ward at your local hospital and tell them that we're just 'being greedy' trying to advance our knowledge.

I'd suggest you take more of an interest in science, you might think that nothing has changed in computing in the last 5- 10 year, but that's because you're speaking from a position of ignorance. As usual.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed.

So you sit in front of a monitor, throw abuse in some vague way, all over a completely none offenseive post, and then try and tell us how were missing the joy of life?!

It doesn't work really, does it. Just makes you look a little keen to try and have a go at someone you don't like on the internet. Hamish and Reno will LOVE it.

Abuse? It was advice, good advice if you're twisting youself up over windows 8 and smart phones.

Graham I don't "not like you", we're not 6 years old.

Graham_Devon

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

I'd suggest you take more of an interest in science, you might think that nothing has changed in computing in the last 5- 10 year, but that's because you're speaking from a position of ignorance. As usual.

Ignorance is best displayed when you have to change what someone has said to make your point.

I didn't say nothing had changed, indeed, I referenced what had changed. I asked what those changes have bought us that has been worth the resource usage.

I really don't see why or how this thread has turned into a usual argument, other than reno and joe are back in the game, probably upset by the infinate usage stuff.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

probably upset by the infinate usage stuff.

... :laugh:

Yep, that's it, I'm so upset by the David Attenborough revelation that growth cannot be infinite that I haven't had a chance to shed a tear over the imminent service pack for Windows 8.

Harry_Boyle

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ignorance is best displayed when you have to change what someone has said to make your point.

I didn't say nothing had changed, indeed, I referenced what had changed. I asked what those changes have bought us that has been worth the resource usage.

And I have told you what those changes have brought us. You just don't like having your posts critiqued, you seem to just want your thanking buddies to clap you on the back for everything you say, whether it is correct or not.

Perhaps you should start your own forum and just allow yourself to post, then you'll not have the inconvenience of people pulling you up when you make a glaringly incorrect statement or observation?

jamesmorgan

David Attenborough is off course correct, but the key question is one of timescales. The counter-arguments that technology will solve all the problems tend to be somewhat short-sighted. They may be able to push the problem back a few generations, but the success of a species is measured in millions of years not thousands. That said, it would be brave to currently make a prediction that the human race will last another thousand years.

The most unstable processes involve positive feedback loops. In chemical reactions they usually end in an explosion. Technology is growing at a faster and faster pace as new inventions build on previous one. Population is growing exponentially as are the natural resources used by each person on the planet. Ultimately the solution is inevitable - a major crisis (either disease or war). If we are lucky as a species a few of us will survive and the process will start again. If we not, then we will go down as en evolutionary experiment that failed.

The nearest analogy I can think of is Lemmings. They regularly go through population explosions, eat all the available food then jump off the nearest cliff in a vain attempt to find more.

CLAPTON

It is unclear that population is growing exponentially.

As countries become more developed the number of children per person tends to decline.

So most world population predictions show the population stabilising around 8-9 billion rather than growing exponetially.

But there is of course considerable uncertainty.

the_flying_pig

jamesmorgan wrote: »

David Attenborough is off course correct, but the key question is one of timescales. The counter-arguments that technology will solve all the problems tend to be somewhat short-sighted. They may be able to push the problem back a few generations, but the success of a species is measured in millions of years not thousands. That said, it would be brave to currently make a prediction that the human race will last another thousand years.

The most unstable processes involve positive feedback loops. In chemical reactions they usually end in an explosion. Technology is growing at a faster and faster pace as new inventions build on previous one. Population is growing exponentially as are the natural resources used by each person on the planet. Ultimately the solution is inevitable - a major crisis (either disease or war). If we are lucky as a species a few of us will survive and the process will start again. If we not, then we will go down as en evolutionary experiment that failed.

The nearest analogy I can think of is Lemmings. They regularly go through population explosions, eat all the available food then jump off the nearest cliff in a vain attempt to find more.

that's right.

we can't have infinite growth, clearly.

but if we can have several hundred or thousand years' worth of growth then, well, should we really be spending a lot of time worrying about what happens after that?

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Lov
So why do we continue to chase pyramid schemes?

Which schemes are you referring to?