[opportunity (OP)]

Do we have to work and strive to keep everything tech alive given what nature provides already, and why?

Worse still, do we have to face the impact of a natural manifold not compatible with the tech we presume is based on good science? Are we the robots making and cleaning because of not knowing any better?

We go to work to keep a tech-machine alive that chews at our natural resources.....to what end.....does it define our "humanity", our need to know our ecosystems limits (one would think, "ideally")....or do we think we can use rocket science to find a better planet elsewhere light years away?

Sounds harsh, but that's the gist of 2018 in the absence of anything else.

Are we robots to nature? We can do anything with nature, we've proven that, we can change it with our turning away to technology.

It's one thing to focus on science and those fruits (technology) to improve our appreciation of reality and nature, and it's another thing to do that at the expense of nature.

Any ideas?

[Bored chemist]

Do we have to work and strive to keep everything tech alive given what nature provides already,

There are several inches of snow on the ground outside my house. The temperature is just below freezing.
What nature gives me is death from hypothermia.

I will stick with technology.
(and, if you plan to keep posting stuff on the web, so will you)

[opportunity (OP)]

Do we have to work and strive to keep everything tech alive given what nature provides already,

There are several inches of snow on the ground outside my house. The temperature is just below freezing.
What nature gives me is death from hypothermia.

I will stick with technology.
(and, if you plan to keep posting stuff on the web, so will you)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Warmest ever polar. Apparently the ice is moving south owing to a change in the direction of air flow according to what happens if cold air moves elsewhere given the ice melt.

You know its logical for ice to find ground to settle on in the context of a global warming, and not sea.......Greenland is not a candidate right now......owing to the ice dynamic there....

Blaming me is not the answer.....good luck with dealing with any snow you think shouldn't be there.

I shouldn't say "good luck", that defeats the topic, right?

I'm sorry for saying "good luck". I've done all I can myself. I'm vegan (9 years), and haven't owned a car since 1997. My idea is being "looking ahead". Why need to screw the land because I want a burger? If I need a car, I'll rent one. I'm no less of a human than 9 years ago. I'm no ill. sh1t, I mean, if anyone wants to make an effort for the planet they will right? Making an effort for science and tech is another thing, same ballpark though as what's done already, just a little more nature-friendly....by focus.

[Bored chemist]

You rather seem to have missed the point. I wasn't blaming you for the weather- that would be daft. We get snow most Winters- and it kills people most Winters.
Nature is jolly good at killing people. (it doesn't mater if it's via cold, drought, infection, starvation, predation or what.

We use technology to keep ourselves alive. Without it, we might not be "robots", but we would be dead.

[Ophiolite]

I have many weaknesses. One is relevant here. I tend to automatically reject any argument the constituent sentences of which do not parse. I know I should look through the mish-mash of bad grammar, buzz words and indignation to discern the message. But then I think, if it's that important couldn't the author have done a better job of presenting it?

I did, however, understand your last sentence; clear and concise. A masterpiece of precision. You want ideas.

My idea is that it is very important for you to understand the difference between science and technology. You do not appear, currently, to do so. Such an understanding is vital if we are to solve any problem of environmental disruption.

[opportunity (OP)]

Haha. Ok.

The post is a question, it's not a statement of affirmation, thus I'm on the fence also.

There's good technology and there's bad technology for the planet. Exploding a nuclear weapon is bad technology. "Runaway use" of fossil fuels is a bad application of technology based on scientific understanding of chemicals.

I get all that. Looking for ideas on the idea that we could become slaves to our own creations, that's all.

[Bored chemist]

I tend to automatically reject any argument the constituent sentences of which do not parse.

I'm not sure that parse is an intransitive verb.
Part of my reason for  thinking this is that you might not be able to parse  a phrase, but I might.

[opportunity (OP)]

I'm a monkey's uncle if technology is not a result of science...here's why:

Let's say for some unknown reason no one knows how things work anymore, we are just given technology our forefathers used.....like there was a catastrophe, global.

We still know how to press buttons, but we depend on the science behind those devices to keep them working. Is that a scientific need?

In the absence of science, having technology that still works that no one knows the science for, we're back-engineering, right?

[Bored chemist]

I'm a monkey's uncle if technology is not a result of science...here's why:

And here's why you are wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapping
And every technological innovation between the stone age and the emergence of science (very roughly ) late in the renaissance.

[opportunity (OP)]

Im thinking the idea of a monkey fashioning a blade to harm other monkeys is, dare i say it, above and beyond what a normal monkey would consider. We use the arrow of time for space do we not, primitive yet effetive.

Is our invention of the arrow for time in space considered science?

[fran]

Do we have to work and strive to keep everything tech alive given what nature provides already,

There are several inches of snow on the ground outside my house. The temperature is just below freezing.
What nature gives me is death from hypothermia.

I will stick with technology.
(and, if you plan to keep posting stuff on the web, so will you)

The ice is moving south due to a change in the direction of air flow according to what happens if cold air moves elsewhere given the ice melt.