Technology and quality of life
Hi all
So a question about technology and its effect on quality of life. Basically I'm trying to determine if technology is improving our quality of life, not just in one life but across generations...
Take for example our ancestors who resided in caves and hunted for food. Before tools (i.e. technology) were even thought of I imagine most of the time we would search for berries, perhaps insects etc. However at some point we developed tools which would allow us to hunt and eat meat, break open coconuts (sorry only thing I could think of ;) etc.
With the above example in mind if we asked those two sets of humans to rate their quality of life (those with and without technology) would their be any difference? Would the humans with technology rate their quality of life higher than those without? The obvious answer is yes as they can eat food and complete tasks their ancestors could not. However I'm not so convinced. The humans who invented the tool to make these tasks possible may have a greater appreciation for it and feel the technology has improved their lives but what about those who grew up with the technology, that is the creator’s offspring? As they do not know any different can they say that this technology has improved their quality of life?
I feel it may be that subjective quality of life remains the same but objectively it has improved?
Does it not matter more what one thinks about their quality of life than what it objectively is??
Basically are we doing more harm having technology as it only truly benefits those who can appreciate it (i.e. those who grew up without it). As otherwise humans are growing up with a technology they need to sustain to maintain their current quality of life which they would not need to if they never had the technology in the first place and yet still have the same quality of life as they would not know any different.
Hopefully this makes sense...
So a question about technology and its effect on quality of life. Basically I'm trying to determine if technology is improving our quality of life, not just in one life but across generations...
Take for example our ancestors who resided in caves and hunted for food. Before tools (i.e. technology) were even thought of I imagine most of the time we would search for berries, perhaps insects etc. However at some point we developed tools which would allow us to hunt and eat meat, break open coconuts (sorry only thing I could think of ;) etc.
With the above example in mind if we asked those two sets of humans to rate their quality of life (those with and without technology) would their be any difference? Would the humans with technology rate their quality of life higher than those without? The obvious answer is yes as they can eat food and complete tasks their ancestors could not. However I'm not so convinced. The humans who invented the tool to make these tasks possible may have a greater appreciation for it and feel the technology has improved their lives but what about those who grew up with the technology, that is the creator’s offspring? As they do not know any different can they say that this technology has improved their quality of life?
I feel it may be that subjective quality of life remains the same but objectively it has improved?
Does it not matter more what one thinks about their quality of life than what it objectively is??
Basically are we doing more harm having technology as it only truly benefits those who can appreciate it (i.e. those who grew up without it). As otherwise humans are growing up with a technology they need to sustain to maintain their current quality of life which they would not need to if they never had the technology in the first place and yet still have the same quality of life as they would not know any different.
Hopefully this makes sense...
Comments (27)
This sounds less like you're talking about quality of life, and more like you're talking about individual happyness. From what I have heard, happyness is far less related to material circumstances than people tend to assume. It is nevertheless related. Starving or being mauled by a bear are not fun.
There is also the fact that technology allows us the necessary leisure time to figure out how to make people happier. Psychotherapy presumably was less prevalent in 10.000 BC.
Live Long and Prosper.
Now, we can be anywhere and make and fulfill transactions in minutes. That's a lot of time saved, allowing for more transactions and more business. And payments are also near instant.
So you could potentially be far more productive while at the same time have lots of free time to do whatever you wanted.
However, all this speed means we could also quickly get swamped or we could end up fighting for clients as business becomes easier for others to get into your niche. This is very stressful and our quality of life could suffer greatly.
But for sure, I'd rather be hospitalized now vs say in the 60s or earlier. I'm glad we're going through this Pandemic now vs the time prior to cable, internet etc...
If by technology you mean machines - tractors, power drills, excavators, even robots and possibly AI - then I'd say what I've always been saying or am under the impression that I've been saying, to wit, that our minds and bodies are out of sync. What I mean is our minds have the uncanny ability to figure out how something can be done in more efficient and faster ways and machines were born out of that but the problem is our bodies are so built that some amount of physical activity has a maintenance function. Since machines literally make physical activity pointless or even a setback to what we've been told is "progress", our bodies' maintenance-oriented physical activity takes a hit and thus the litany of health problems that follow: obesity, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular illnesses mainly which, in your book, should read as poor quality of life.
The solution, in my humble opinion, can take three forms:
One, stop using tools altogether and that means doing everything by hand if you know what I mean. It'll be like traveling back to the stone age. I fear we won't find many takers for this proposal.
Two, wait it out, let our bodies, through the slow process of evolution, adapt to less physical activity in a way that eventually makes everything that has to do with our bodies completely obsolete, a relic, as it were, of our evolutionary ancestry.
Three, genetic engineering. Our minds seem fully capable of effecting such a feat: we could, gene-wise, edit out our weaknesses and edit in our strengths. This, however, is something that's bound to face objections on ethical grounds; after all, weaknesses and strengths are value-laden terms.
Is good health necessary? What if that good health was maintained only for a short duration, then suddenly ended in death? Mozart died at 35 after a brilliant and influential career, Keats at 25; would you trade your obscure longevity for his brief immortality?
Quoting Todd Martin
It’s not so hard to find a beginning point to the question.
Quality of life for all people would begin with access to food and water, shelter and a feeling of security. I have no statistics but I imagine there are many people still living close to that edge. So how would technology impact on their quality of life? Substantially I think.
This is a general meaning given to quality: “ the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.”
Probably not very satisfying in terms of your question, but still, a beginning.
Someone sitting in dirt on a street in Delhi, blind and deformed, knows what quality of life is about. It’s that very moment. It’s not a prerequisite to anything, except surviving that moment.
Quoting Todd Martin
Is this rhetorical?
Quoting Todd Martin
In the beginning, yes.
Quoting Todd Martin
Word games. My reference to statistics was in regard to the number of people living on the edge, not about the meaning of “the quality of life”.
Quoting Todd Martin
This suggests there might be something else technology might contribute. Is that what you mean?
Quoting Todd Martin
That’s fine. Maybe we’ll find a ground to meet on.
Quoting Todd Martin
Probably not for everyone though. Access to clean, safe water has not always been available to everyone. Consequently life is one of physical struggle, disease, high child mortality and early death. If the early death is the male adult of the family then life becomes harder again.
Quoting Luke1i1
I think it’s a double edged sword. We may not have the ability to manage what we develop, despite there being useful technologies among what we do develop. Assuming it’s us creating technology of course.
Quoting Todd Martin
Interesting that you break technology up into two eras. So what is modern technology, how would we define that and where’s the crossover point?