The Prometheanism debate

1. 66

   ThompsonPenposted 9 years ago

   Prometheanism is based off the Myth of Prometheus, who brought fire to earth - for which the Gods punished him. His belief was that we should have that knowledge. This, through time, became the core of the idea of Prometheanism, which is because we can find mastery over something, we should use that knowledge. This is what has spurred us to our technological advancements in the world.
   However, these ideals have also been our downfall - look at the atom bomb. They wanted to see if they could harness that knowledge/technology, though had no intent to use it as such, yet others did.
   The other side of the coin is Anti-Prometheanism, the idea that we halt everything and go back to the way we used to live, without technology. Many argue too that this is not an option, since this would be moving us backwards.
   So what do we do? Because we can create/discover/have power over something, does that mean we should? Who is to judge?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      To answer your question directly, me. And yes, we should exercise mastery over nature, that does not mean however, that we should abuse. These are two different aspects. That we have the capacity to reason, should we? That we possess language should we speak, even that we degrade language or use to it to hurt others?
      To claim that we should not advance is to deny human nature, to deny who and what we are. If we do not have mastery, than it is us who has been mastered and basically held in bondage to nature. To this end we are no more or less than any other animal. Is this your suggestion?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         +1  There is very little that we've invented that cannot and has not been used as a weapon.  That is not a reason not to develop anything.

         replyreport
      2. 66

         ThompsonPenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I"m not arguing either direction, I'm simply opening the question for debate.
         Can we say that more good has come from our actions than harm? consider climate change, the constant evolution of military weapons, reanimating extinct diseases and so on. Is there a solution in which we can continue to advance without causing destruction? Will we be able to advance long enough to find a way around said destruction?

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            If technology facilitates the ability of mankind to life in helpful ways, then it is good to continue develop it. Of course, common sense boundaries are vital since we do not want to destroy the planet. Whatever promotes the LIFE of people, nature and the planet itself should be developed. 
            
            We must rise to the occasion of continuing technological advancements through education. There is so much to learn now… we need to be able to speed up the learning process. We need to find ways to enable kids to teach themselves according to their interests while they are young and their minds are absorbent. We need to sell kids on education and offer subjects according to the roles they will play in the future world.
            
            ( It is also absolutely vital to focus on basic concrete survival skills and abilities. In my opinion, it should be illegal to allow children to use screen technologies until they are fifteen. For instance, they should develop solid human skills first, such as reading, writing and arithmetic, basic mechanics and art / graphic art and music. Athletic abilities such as running, swimming, gymnastics and dancing should be encouraged, as well as the ability to defend oneself through martial arts, etc.
            
             
            TWISI

            replyreport
            1. 66

               ThompsonPenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I completely agree with your view on kinds and the use of electronics.
               
               To be devil's advocate - what about technologies which are good for people but not for the planet? What about eco systems? What about the severely beneficial to humanity, yet devastating to the natural world?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Nature should be our primary concern. Nature does not need us. We need nature… actually, nature needs us to protect it…from ourselves!
                  repeating:
                  Whatever promotes the LIFE of people, nature and the planet itself should be developed.  ( and only that.)
                  
                  I think nuclear power plants are too dangerous. I think the Fukushima power plant site is still pouring out radiation.

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     ThompsonPenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     the follow up question  i have to that is can we be trusted to allow ourselves to continue creating such technologies without abusing and mistreating?

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't think so. It is a matter of human error. It is a matter of human diabolicalness. It is a matter of greed and manipulation. When we are more highly evolved spiritually and intellectually… Will there ever be that day? I doubt it. I could be wrong.
                        
                        "A year after theWall Street Journalreport, TEPCO announced that the Daiichi plant's meltdown had released 2.5 times more radiation into the atmosphere than initially estimated. The utility cited broken radiation sensors within the plant's proximity as the main reason for this deficit and, in the same statement, claimed that 99 percent of the total radiation released from the Daiichi plant occurred during the last three weeks of March 2011. That last part turned out to be untrue—a year later, in June 2013, TEPCO admitted that almost 80,000 gallons of contaminated water had been leaking into the Pacific Ocean every day since the meltdown. As of today, that leak continues."
                        https://news.vice.com/article/no-one-wa … t-still-be

                        replyreport
                        1. 66

                           ThompsonPenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           my goodness things like that depress me! It's just so heartbreaking the amount of greed that is destroying everything!
                           
                           so, with that being said, if we (as a whole/the representations of humans) are incapable of making responsible and healthy decisions with our technologies, then do we have the right to them?

                           replyreport
         2. 60

            cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Thomas
            I believe that you are taking a position, but to your last considerations; there is no evidence that the climate is changing due to the advancement of humanity. If there is, I would like to see it. What extinct diseases are we reanimating?
            Man is an evolving creature with the capacity to reason. We are the only known animal that has the capacity to ask a question and there is no one to answer our questions, but ourselves. There was no instruction manual that came with our species or with the planet. To use a crude analogy, it would be akin to a toddler trying to make his way with other toddlers or the perhaps, the Lord of the Flies is a good example.
            I am very much the optimist when it comes to the future of Man, providing that we survive ourselves and nature. We are reasoning beings and that is a very special commodity. We are still very much in the toddler stage, but we are learning and we are forced to learn from our own mistakes and that, in itself, carries numerous problems.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               ThompsonPenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Over Prometheanism - no, I have no stance. As mentioned in one of my comments, I am playing devil's advocate. However, my stance on the environment and the like, I do take a strong side.
               But to address your questions -
               Firstly, in late October there was an article published called "Ancient Virus Revived From 700-Year-Old Caribou Feces" and you can read the details of it here: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-an … ibou-feces
               This has not been the only one I have read about. I recall earlier in the year coming across another article about reviving a disease/virus found from ancient bones, though I can't remember too much about it.
               
               Secondly, it's extremely naive to say that we are not a part of climate change, especially when 97% of scientists say we are while the other 3% are hmming and hawwing. An article in the National Geographic called "Human-Caused Climate Change Worsens Heat Waves in 2013, Study Says" begins with the opening, "A new report attributes heat waves around the world in 2013 to human-caused climate change, but finds the link between climate change and other extreme weather events—including the California drought—to be much less certain."
               http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … r-science/
               Skeptical Science even has a graph which compares human effect on climate change vs. natural occurrences, which weighs heavy on the human influence. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
               And WMO (World Meteorologist Organization) even walks the reader through the causes of Climate Change: http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate … change.php
               "Since the beginning of the 20th century, scientists have been observing a change in the climate that can not be attributed to any of the ‘natural’ influences of the past only. This change in the climate, also known as global warming, has occurred faster than any other climate change recorded by humans and so is of great interest and importance to the human population. The following sections look at the main causes of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change (for the ‘natural’ influences on climate change, refer to the above mentioned Understanding Climate section)."
               
               These are just a couple articles. Though, I do hear the subject is up for debate. However, I did hear a great analogy just last night actually - if there is a bridge and 97% of the engineers are saying is going to collapse, but 3% are still wanting to run tests on the bridge, would you still drive over it?
               
               PS - I think you meant to address me as Thompson, not Thomas. Thomas is my father and I'm a woman.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Thompson
                  I have heard the claim of 97% of scientists, but since they fail to provide those names, I put it in the same category as, "You can keep your own Doctor"
                  What I can provide however is the names of 31,000 scientists to include meteorologists, who claim that the government position is wrong, which can be found here http://www.petitionproject.org/ In any case the source of the 97% of scientists came from the mouth of Obama, when in fact the original quote came from NASA, which is the following "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." You will note the difference in language from climate scientists to scientists. Also was the fact that these scientists of NASA are on the government payroll and that was left out.
                  As for the bridge analogy, what we are finding is that you would be allowed to use the bridge if you paid a higher toll, even though the alleged claims of doom remain. What does this tell you?
                  "The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make." I believe that the above quote is part of your reference to the 97%
                  All this is interesting, but a side road and not to your original post.

                  replyreport
   2. 59

      kessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The simple reality is that in progressing forward, it takes you to the end, which is the same as going back to the beginning.
      
      This is why things are the way they are, and those who do not understand it are the cause the conflicts which ensure that everything progresses as expected.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      blathererposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Anti-Prometheanism sounds like it jives with my own opinion, in that I would be happy to die along with the rest of my miserable species if it rids the world of us and gives it back to creatures incapable of the horrors we've inflicted.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      Radical Rogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      In other words, the story of Adam and Eve, mankind's right to knowledge as forbidden by the God of Genesis, though take this forward to the story prior to Noah. Certain angels, according to Genesis, saw women as attractive and so put on bodies for themselves and descended to Earth to fornicate and bring forth hybrid children the Nephalim.
      Take the other view, found in many mythologies, the god who would be God prevented mankind taking knowledge and so other gods, spirits, angels, descended to Earth to teach mankind directly. Their children, one parent human, one spirit are described in Genesis as the mighty men of old, the men of legend, but what legend? Scripture doesn't explain but mythology is full of stories of 'heroes' men and women who one parent is human, the other a god.
      Was Promethius one of these spirit beings that descended to Earth to teach mankind - about fire maybe?

      replyreport
      1. 66

         ThompsonPenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Looking at it from this biblical perspective, it seems to me that it was against God to give/gain this knowledge, was it not?
         It could very well be that the myth of Prometheus translates too into biblical stories as well. Another version of the story of Prometheus is actually in the Hebrew traditions, in which the fire is actually a clay being brought to life by Cabalistic magic, and meant to perform tasks. However, if the creator was selfish, then the being would turn on its master. In Roman lore, Prometheus didn't bring fire to humanity, but rather built humans out of clay and brought life to them.

         replyreport