Powering our way out of poverty - 3 views

• 
  #1 Jody Poh on 03 Nov 09

   

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8046112.stm
  
  Only the first part of the article before "Cheap and Continuous" is relevant. Although the whole article is about saving the environment, it hints that technological progress has not resulted in social progress.
  
  For example, even though 130 years has passed since Thomas Edison gave us the electric bulb, more than two billion people still do not have the luxury of electricity.
  
  The article also highlights the wastefulness of technology as science is biased towards creating things for the desires of the people of the first world nation but have neglected the true concens and issues of the world. To quote, "We've invented iPods and flat-screen TVs, but somehow have not invested in ways to eliminate an Iron Age technology that consumes wood inefficiently and creates harmful indoor air pollution".
  
  Can we associate technological process with social process? Though, Man keeps pushing for groundbreaking discoveries, does these cutting edge technologies filter down to the other nations which are not as advanced? If it doesn't, is it really progress at all? Can it be progress, if we are inventing things that realistically cannot be made available or address the real needs of the world? For eg, cures of diseases are not widely available to everyone in this world as it is too expensive.
  
  To put it simply: Do the people of Africa need the technology of cyber robots, or anti virus software when they are busy trying to feed themselves.
  
  Should society be focused on social progress (eg, making ways of ensuring people get widespread availability of electricity) and then bring in technological advances later?
  
  Just some thoughts:)

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8046112.stm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8046112.stm</a> <br /> <br /> Only the first part of the article before "Cheap and Continuous" is relevant. Although the whole article is about saving the environment, it hints that technological progress has not resulted in social progress. <br /> <br /> For example, even though 130 years has passed since Thomas Edison gave us the electric bulb, more than two billion people still do not have the luxury of electricity. <br /> <br /> The article also highlights the wastefulness of technology as science is biased towards creating things for the desires of the people of the first world nation but have neglected the true concens and issues of the world. To quote, "We've invented iPods and flat-screen TVs, but somehow have not invested in ways to eliminate an Iron Age technology that consumes wood inefficiently and creates harmful indoor air pollution". <br /> <br /> Can we associate technological process with social process? Though, Man keeps pushing for groundbreaking discoveries, does these cutting edge technologies filter down to the other nations which are not as advanced? If it doesn't, is it really progress at all? Can it be progress, if we are inventing things that realistically cannot be made available or address the real needs of the world? For eg, cures of diseases are not widely available to everyone in this world as it is too expensive. <br /> <br /> To put it simply: Do the people of Africa need the technology of cyber robots, or anti virus software when they are busy trying to feed themselves. <br /> <br /> Should society be focused on social progress (eg, making ways of ensuring people get widespread availability of electricity) and then bring in technological advances later? <br /> <br /> Just some thoughts:)</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top