TED Conversations

Dyed All Hues

Thinker and Experimenter,

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Has the rate of technological advancements exceeded the rate of most human's adaptation?

I believe everyone wants to connect to something or someone. For the social factor, usually us humans have conversations. Conversations can either be verbal or written. Verbal can be transcribed through phones, webcam, or face-to-face. Written can be transcribed through paper, texting, forms of online messaging, or forums. Setting aside nonverbal language/body language/sign language, do people connect at a different level online than in person? Do your connections online give weigh in your offline life and vice versa? Is there a high level of disconnection with humanity when we use nonverbal and more text based forms of communication? Are our connections online the same as our connections in person? Has the rate of technological advancements exceeded the rate of human adaptation?

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Apr 21 2013: I think the following video can be helpful for answering your question.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmwwrGV_aiE
  • Apr 21 2013: I think so.

    The ability to learn how to use and take advantage of new technology is a real challenge. Understanding of the science behind the technology is beyond the level of scientific understanding of most people. The ability to learn enough to push forward this technology requires so much time and focus that learning other technologies even at basic levels might not be possible. The dependency on technologies we do not fully understand creates the potential for a giant step backward in the event the technology becomes restricted for political reasons or perhaps as the result of the scarcity of some critical resource.

    Another issue is the loss in the ability to do basic tasks for yourself because in your lifetime you have never had to do the skill yourself. For example, many people cannot hunt, fish or farm, yet they are dependent of these products. In the event the technologies went away, there would be famine while people tried to relearn the skills.

    A follow on thought is that with all these new technologies, who decides which technologies should be learned more thoroughly in the time available for training the next generation? What is removed from the learning experience?

    An example of this is in engineering. Robotics is a very popular specialty for new engineers, but to get proficient and become a leader in this field takes a lot of very specialized training. However, does the popularity of this specialty take students away from training in green design techniques, improved agricultural devices, or better medical devices? If you can really only get to be proficient and competitive in one of these, which would you pick? The coolest? The most lucrative? The one most needed by society?

    A a result of the needed focus on your career of choice, the thing that is the new catalyst is serendipitous discovery via something seen on the internet, read in a blog. Then adapting it to your situation or problem becomes the challenge.
  • thumb
    Apr 21 2013: .
    .
    "Human's adaptation" needs the time scale of generations.
    "Technical advancements" need only days, hours, seconds, .......

    "Technical advancements" drive humans to self-extinction!
    Can't "be happy validly!"

    .
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 22 2013: I agree with alot of your thought and logic, however no matter what the topic or discussion is there always seems to be a disconnect between how you put it "oldies" and the younger generations of today. Even here i can notice it. Now im not saying you are "wrong" by any means. In your mind and from your point of view and experiences you are completely correct. You speak of these said connections as simple quick acquaintances, which hmmm actually to you may be true. Yet i grew up (and still am) in a weird time of transition (not that any time isnt one of transition) through the last days of the pre"online," technology infused world into the dawn of a new age for man and technology. Many (almost pretty much most) of my connections online arent acquaintances met through or because of the web, they are previously held, long standing, person to person relationships and friendships. Sure now i know i know now a days everyone on social media has 25000 friends-which are in such a case majorly just quick online acquaintances, but i do not see those people as "friends" but more of a personal online phonebook network. There is another group that i interact with regularly, which includes the previously stated face to face relationships. These people is what makes social media important to me. Specialy personally in my case going away to college, it is a great way to interact and continue those relationships i had at home. I think it really is just another form of communication, another facet, another tool. More tools usually would mean an improved performance or efficiency, or wider rage of ability, which means this new tool would be a good thing. I feel like there are to many examples to lay to this. It is the same between generations, young and old, when new technologies are in discussion. "Back in my day we would talk to a girl in person not text them!" Well heck, pretty soon, "Back in my day we would text, not hologram chat!" Funny how young/old view/think different!