The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
When Dick Cheney, former Vice President of the United States, found out his pacemaker was hackable, he had his doctors disable its wireless feature. He was terrified he would be assassinated via his pacemaker.
(Location 8 - Kindle version)
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Technology may be used or abused. In many ways it offers practical solutions for so many solutions, which may be solved almost at the flick of a switch. In the information age, there is so much information available for most of life's difficulties. It may save a lot of time and energy but that may mean that new problems arise as the previous ones appear to be solved more instantly and smartly in the techno age.
The information age may have arrived and most people spend so much time on phones and other digital devices.I have been mesmerised by being able to download on Kindle and communicate online. It increases information resources but there may be side-effects. It may involve less of the human aspects of communication and understanding which was present in face to face interaction and more intimate relationships with other people and ideas.
The underlying problem may be about depersonalisation, people being treated as numbers, with a disregard for the psychological aspects of human experiences and existence. Of course, there is so much about psychology online, but it is theoretical. This may impact on human relations, making the smart world robotic, and with so much uncertainty about who to trust. Online interaction, especially buying and selling, is done amidst the background awareness of scams. This gives rise to a lot of fear and the whole question of whether the digital technologies, ranging from CCTV to online Google security is questionable, in knowing whether the smart technology creates more safety or just gives rise to as many anxieties which it was designed to solve.
As it is, reliance on technology, especially the digital forms, is moving so fast that the human side of life, and the reliance on machines that it may lead to an Orwellian world, in which people almost become dominated by the power and glamour of technology, bowing down to it and not questioning the underlying philosophies and politics of those creating and overseeing its use and abuse.
Sushan,
I am sorry that my reply to you ended up in the layout of the box. I realise that you may not agree with my ideas and approach at all, so I am adding this to make it clear that the ideas after yours, in the box, were simply my own ones in response to your question.
When Dick Cheney, former Vice President of the United States, found out his pacemaker was hackable, he had his doctors disable its wireless feature. He was terrified he would be assassinated via his pacemaker.
(Location 8 - Kindle version)
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
No, if life expectancy is higher, people are living longer, so life is, on average safer (less deadly). What you're describing is the role of media in broadcasting statistically insignificant (but "newsworthy") events, thus giving the naive the impression that the rare is common and hence important.
When Dick Cheney, former Vice President of the United States, found out his pacemaker was hackable, he had his doctors disable its wireless feature. He was terrified he would be assassinated via his pacemaker.
(Location 8 - Kindle version)
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
No, if life expectancy is higher, people are living longer, so life is, on average safer (less deadly). What you're describing is the role of media in broadcasting statistically insignificant (but "newsworthy") events, thus giving the naive the impression that the rare is common and hence important.
Deadly is not the equivalent of danger. Life expectancy increasing does not cause the world to be less dangerous, only less deadly, not to mention the increased risk of disease, dementia and physical aging that come with a longer life. Additionally, generalizing the life expectancy of the planet as a whole misconstrues the region-specific trends that do not conform. For example: life expectancy in Bulgaria decreased from 75.10 in 2019 to 71.40 in 2021, whereas the world life expectancy increased from 72.46 in 2019 to 72.81 in 2021. And though I agree that the quote is an example of the media giving people the wrong impression, the world has had a lot of dangerous developments to go with the safe ones. When dealing with any new technology, caution is imperative. It is truly naive to use technology without testing and controlled observation as to minimize risk of unforeseen, potentially catastrophic side effects.
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
No, if life expectancy is higher, people are living longer, so life is, on average safer (less deadly). What you're describing is the role of media in broadcasting statistically insignificant (but "newsworthy") events, thus giving the naive the impression that the rare is common and hence important.
Deadly is not the equivalent of danger. Life expectancy increasing does not cause the world to be less dangerous, only less deadly, not to mention the increased risk of disease, dementia and physical aging that come with a longer life. Additionally, generalizing the life expectancy of the planet as a whole misconstrues the region-specific trends that do not conform. For example: life expectancy in Bulgaria decreased from 75.10 in 2019 to 71.40 in 2021, whereas the world life expectancy increased from 72.46 in 2019 to 72.81 in 2021. And though I agree that the quote is an example of the media giving people the wrong impression, the world has had a lot of dangerous developments to go with the safe ones. When dealing with any new technology, caution is imperative. It is truly naive to use technology without testing and controlled observation as to minimize risk of unforeseen, potentially catastrophic side effects.
Okay. Please give details on the difference between deadly and dangerous, such that surviving longer is not a product of a decrease in both.
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
[/quote]
No, if life expectancy is higher, people are living longer, so life is, on average safer (less deadly). What you're describing is the role of media in broadcasting statistically insignificant (but "newsworthy") events, thus giving the naive the impression that the rare is common and hence important.
[/quote]
Deadly is not the equivalent of danger. Life expectancy increasing does not cause the world to be less dangerous, only less deadly, not to mention the increased risk of disease, dementia and physical aging that come with a longer life. Additionally, generalizing the life expectancy of the planet as a whole misconstrues the region-specific trends that do not conform. For example: life expectancy in Bulgaria decreased from 75.10 in 2019 to 71.40 in 2021, whereas the world life expectancy increased from 72.46 in 2019 to 72.81 in 2021. And though I agree that the quote is an example of the media giving people the wrong impression, the world has had a lot of dangerous developments to go with the safe ones. When dealing with any new technology, caution is imperative. It is truly naive to use technology without testing and controlled observation as to minimize risk of unforeseen, potentially catastrophic side effects.
[/quote]
Okay. Please give details on the difference between deadly and dangerous, such that surviving longer is not a product of a decrease in both.
[/quote]
Danger is the risk of harm, whereas deadly is risk of death. Something can be dangerous without being deadly; for example, touching a hot stove for 5 seconds. The likelihood of dying from this is very unlikely, but you are going to be left with burns. Therefore, danger is a more apt description than deadly. Not to mention the significantly better medical practices that make things that were once deadly less so. This doesn't mean things are less dangerous, as an accidental wound is still a wound. It's still harmful to your body. In application to the modern day, the world is not less dangerous, only less deadly. There are significantly more opportunities for danger in our everyday lives than there used to be; those dangers are just easier to recover from.
Cocaine-+-Blood wrote: ↑December 14th, 2022, 4:41 pm
Danger is the risk of harm, whereas deadly is risk of death. Something can be dangerous without being deadly; for example, touching a hot stove for 5 seconds. The likelihood of dying from this is very unlikely, but you are going to be left with burns. Therefore, danger is a more apt description than deadly. Not to mention the significantly better medical practices that make things that were once deadly less so. This doesn't mean things are less dangerous, as an accidental wound is still a wound. It's still harmful to your body. In application to the modern day, the world is not less dangerous, only less deadly. There are significantly more opportunities for danger in our everyday lives than there used to be; those dangers are just easier to recover from.
I am not certain your description of danger and thus dangerousness is universally accepted. Not that it is a bad definition, just one that many will differ from in their understanding.
As far as your conclusion of the opportunities for danger in the moden era, I totally disagree with you. What is your realistic risk to eating food tomorrow? Getting a paper cut opening a bag of chips? How about food contamination in the 1800s? Cholera from the well in the square in London. Or hunting and gathering on the plains in the Stone Age? No, it is silly to suppose that the trend in the risk dying is opposite to the risk of harm over long periods of time.
JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 4:48 pm
Sushan,
I am sorry that my reply to you ended up in the layout of the box. I realise that you may not agree with my ideas and approach at all, so I am adding this to make it clear that the ideas after yours, in the box, were simply my own ones in response to your question.
Thank you for the clarification and it is totally okay. I will edit your response to be seen as a normal reply. Sorry for the delayed response.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 4:44 pm
Technology may be used or abused. In many ways it offers practical solutions for so many solutions, which may be solved almost at the flick of a switch. In the information age, there is so much information available for most of life's difficulties. It may save a lot of time and energy but that may mean that new problems arise as the previous ones appear to be solved more instantly and smartly in the techno age.
The information age may have arrived and most people spend so much time on phones and other digital devices.I have been mesmerised by being able to download on Kindle and communicate online. It increases information resources but there may be side-effects. It may involve less of the human aspects of communication and understanding which was present in face to face interaction and more intimate relationships with other people and ideas.
The underlying problem may be about depersonalisation, people being treated as numbers, with a disregard for the psychological aspects of human experiences and existence. Of course, there is so much about psychology online, but it is theoretical. This may impact on human relations, making the smart world robotic, and with so much uncertainty about who to trust. Online interaction, especially buying and selling, is done amidst the background awareness of scams. This gives rise to a lot of fear and the whole question of whether the digital technologies, ranging from CCTV to online Google security is questionable, in knowing whether the smart technology creates more safety or just gives rise to as many anxieties which it was designed to solve.
As it is, reliance on technology, especially the digital forms, is moving so fast that the human side of life, and the reliance on machines that it may lead to an Orwellian world, in which people almost become dominated by the power and glamour of technology, bowing down to it and not questioning the underlying philosophies and politics of those creating and overseeing its use and abuse.
Still humans have the upper hand when it comes to the technology and artificial intintelligence. But with the modern developments we are not very far from a world that you describe, a world in which people are just numbers and no more inter-human interactions, but just the interactions through the technology.
But at the same time we saw how people chose to be in touch with their loved ones in the Covid era using this technology. And there were many technological advancements that were merely targeted on enhancing social interactions. So I think human society is not yet fully depersonalized and succumbed to the technology, and is not very close to such a fate as well.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
When Dick Cheney, former Vice President of the United States, found out his pacemaker was hackable, he had his doctors disable its wireless feature. He was terrified he would be assassinated via his pacemaker.
(Location 8 - Kindle version)
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
No, if life expectancy is higher, people are living longer, so life is, on average safer (less deadly). What you're describing is the role of media in broadcasting statistically insignificant (but "newsworthy") events, thus giving the naive the impression that the rare is common and hence important.
I agree with your opinion regarding the acts of mass media. Here they have highlighted a relatively less likely thing and has given something for the people to think over. But at the same time this would have given some dangerous people some dangerous ideas as well.
Yes, we see an increment in the life expectancy. But do most of the people live a healthy life towards the end of their life expectancy? How many have to either depend on medicine or surgeries to cling to their dear lives? So has it really become less deadly when the life expectancy is increased?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
When Dick Cheney, former Vice President of the United States, found out his pacemaker was hackable, he had his doctors disable its wireless feature. He was terrified he would be assassinated via his pacemaker.
(Location 8 - Kindle version)
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
No, if life expectancy is higher, people are living longer, so life is, on average safer (less deadly). What you're describing is the role of media in broadcasting statistically insignificant (but "newsworthy") events, thus giving the naive the impression that the rare is common and hence important.
Deadly is not the equivalent of danger. Life expectancy increasing does not cause the world to be less dangerous, only less deadly, not to mention the increased risk of disease, dementia and physical aging that come with a longer life. Additionally, generalizing the life expectancy of the planet as a whole misconstrues the region-specific trends that do not conform. For example: life expectancy in Bulgaria decreased from 75.10 in 2019 to 71.40 in 2021, whereas the world life expectancy increased from 72.46 in 2019 to 72.81 in 2021. And though I agree that the quote is an example of the media giving people the wrong impression, the world has had a lot of dangerous developments to go with the safe ones. When dealing with any new technology, caution is imperative. It is truly naive to use technology without testing and controlled observation as to minimize risk of unforeseen, potentially catastrophic side effects.
Nice observations. Yes, something like life expectancy cannot be applied in general as there are many factors that play a role in the end result. Although, as per my knowledge, it has not been properly assesed, some of these 'reduction of life expectancy situations' might actually have something to do with the technological advancements. A simple example is the increased prevalence of reduced visual acuity in the young generation with the development of smart devices, mainly smart phones.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
No, if life expectancy is higher, people are living longer, so life is, on average safer (less deadly). What you're describing is the role of media in broadcasting statistically insignificant (but "newsworthy") events, thus giving the naive the impression that the rare is common and hence important.
Deadly is not the equivalent of danger. Life expectancy increasing does not cause the world to be less dangerous, only less deadly, not to mention the increased risk of disease, dementia and physical aging that come with a longer life. Additionally, generalizing the life expectancy of the planet as a whole misconstrues the region-specific trends that do not conform. For example: life expectancy in Bulgaria decreased from 75.10 in 2019 to 71.40 in 2021, whereas the world life expectancy increased from 72.46 in 2019 to 72.81 in 2021. And though I agree that the quote is an example of the media giving people the wrong impression, the world has had a lot of dangerous developments to go with the safe ones. When dealing with any new technology, caution is imperative. It is truly naive to use technology without testing and controlled observation as to minimize risk of unforeseen, potentially catastrophic side effects.
Okay. Please give details on the difference between deadly and dangerous, such that surviving longer is not a product of a decrease in both.
Although the question was not meant for me, I thought of giving some input to the discussion.
I checked through the internet and saw that the two words can be defined differently. But at the same time the two are being used as synonyms as well. So I think we cannot use these two words for totally seperate things without causing confusion, unless we define them at the very beginning.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Cocaine-+-Blood wrote: ↑December 14th, 2022, 4:41 pm
Several centuries back there were very few ways for a man to loose his life or wealth. With the technological developments some of such ways were removed while some new and sophisticated and more dangerous ways were born. Above quote is such an occasion in which Mr. Dick Cheney got a reasonable suspicion (though he may have overreacted) about loosing his life in a strange way.
Has the world become a dangerous place to live in? Should we always be cautious about the more sophisticated and technologically advanced stuff that we get in touch with? Or is it merely an overreaction and we should not take it seriously (and apply in general)?
No, if life expectancy is higher, people are living longer, so life is, on average safer (less deadly). What you're describing is the role of media in broadcasting statistically insignificant (but "newsworthy") events, thus giving the naive the impression that the rare is common and hence important.
Deadly is not the equivalent of danger. Life expectancy increasing does not cause the world to be less dangerous, only less deadly, not to mention the increased risk of disease, dementia and physical aging that come with a longer life. Additionally, generalizing the life expectancy of the planet as a whole misconstrues the region-specific trends that do not conform. For example: life expectancy in Bulgaria decreased from 75.10 in 2019 to 71.40 in 2021, whereas the world life expectancy increased from 72.46 in 2019 to 72.81 in 2021. And though I agree that the quote is an example of the media giving people the wrong impression, the world has had a lot of dangerous developments to go with the safe ones. When dealing with any new technology, caution is imperative. It is truly naive to use technology without testing and controlled observation as to minimize risk of unforeseen, potentially catastrophic side effects.
Okay. Please give details on the difference between deadly and dangerous, such that surviving longer is not a product of a decrease in both.
Danger is the risk of harm, whereas deadly is risk of death. Something can be dangerous without being deadly; for example, touching a hot stove for 5 seconds. The likelihood of dying from this is very unlikely, but you are going to be left with burns. Therefore, danger is a more apt description than deadly. Not to mention the significantly better medical practices that make things that were once deadly less so. This doesn't mean things are less dangerous, as an accidental wound is still a wound. It's still harmful to your body. In application to the modern day, the world is not less dangerous, only less deadly. There are significantly more opportunities for danger in our everyday lives than there used to be; those dangers are just easier to recover from.
I think I see some flaws in this argument. Several diseases that were considered as deadly in the past has become not deadly with the advancement of the medical field. So the danger from the particular illness to human beings is also reduced. I think it is difficult to argue upon two synonyms.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Cocaine-+-Blood wrote: ↑December 14th, 2022, 4:41 pm
Danger is the risk of harm, whereas deadly is risk of death. Something can be dangerous without being deadly; for example, touching a hot stove for 5 seconds. The likelihood of dying from this is very unlikely, but you are going to be left with burns. Therefore, danger is a more apt description than deadly. Not to mention the significantly better medical practices that make things that were once deadly less so. This doesn't mean things are less dangerous, as an accidental wound is still a wound. It's still harmful to your body. In application to the modern day, the world is not less dangerous, only less deadly. There are significantly more opportunities for danger in our everyday lives than there used to be; those dangers are just easier to recover from.
I am not certain your description of danger and thus dangerousness is universally accepted. Not that it is a bad definition, just one that many will differ from in their understanding.
As far as your conclusion of the opportunities for danger in the moden era, I totally disagree with you. What is your realistic risk to eating food tomorrow? Getting a paper cut opening a bag of chips? How about food contamination in the 1800s? Cholera from the well in the square in London. Or hunting and gathering on the plains in the Stone Age? No, it is silly to suppose that the trend in the risk dying is opposite to the risk of harm over long periods of time.
Can you please elaborate your opinion. Did you mean something like risk of getting dislipidaemia due to long term unhealthy food habits? Or is it the reduction of risks to the human life due to the improvement of living conditions through hundreds of years with the societal evolution of the humans, from hunting dats to the technological era?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
