Most wanted accomplishment from emerging technology?????

[Fleshdancer]

Good evening DUers

I took the latest Zogby poll and was fascinated by this question and the answers to choose from:


Which of the following would you most like to see accomplished through the development of emerging technologies?

An end to world hunger (bioengineering makes it possible to feed the globe)
An end to disease (genetic engineering helps eradicate AIDS, malaria, etc)
Extended life-span (medical breakthroughs allow people to live another four or five decades)
Exploration of the universe (new technologies allow us to travel to the outer-reaches of our solar system)
An end to fossil fuels (cold fusion, hydrogen power, etc allow us to end independence upon fossil fuels)
None/Not sure


I sat there for almost 10 minutes trying to figure out whether I would rather end world hunger or disease. Obviously "all of the above" would have been the best choice for me, but it wasn't an option. At the end of the day, I chose "an end to disease" because I thought dying of disease would probably be the most painful way to leave this planet.

So what would your answer be and why? Please note that there is no "all of the above" and no "other" to choose from so please choose just from the list provided with your explanation.

[spindrifter]

1. I'd go with ending disease, too...

I don't like the idea of "bioengineering makes it possible to" have suicide seeds that will keep developing country farmers in thrall to transnational megacorporations forever. Extended life-span might be a real drag if the oldsters have no jobs or other income. And I'm not going for nuclear energy--note it says nothing aout hydro power or wind power. Wonder who sponsored this--sounds very BFEE.

[jobycom]

6. Wouldn't you think

that hunger is a bigger problem than being in thrall to corporations? I mean, we are all in thrall to our sources of income and money. Wouldn't the survival of an entire region rank higher on the moral scale than their freedom from corporations? Hunger enslaves millions more thoroughly than corporations ever could.

I'm sorry, but something about the way you said that sounds extremely elitist to me.

[spindrifter]

26. As an elitist I picked elimination of disease,

while still criticizing corporate control over hunger control. Elimination of disease doubles back into elimination of hunger, as people are prone to multitudes of diseases when they are hungry.

[applegrove]

2. Disease. Absolutely.

[enlightenment]

3. Toss up between

exploration of the universe and an end to fossil fuels. The bioengineering and genetic engineering bits make me uncomfortable -- not because I'm fundamentally opposed, but because we lack, globally, the standards, ethics, and common sense to recognize the potential pitfalls of those technologies.
Living longer? Hardly reasonable, given the state of the planet.

I was born the year Sputnik first circled the globe; I'm a true child of the space-age -- so the idea of space exploration is near and dear to my heart. On the other hand, we have got to end our reliance on fossil fuels or nothing else will matter.

So, I suppose, in the end, I'll choose end to fossil fuels.

[jobycom]

4. Hunger. I would have said fossil fuels, but as it's written,

there is nothing to indicate "cheap or free" sources of energy. If the new sources of energy are free and readily available, I think energy could be used to eradicate disease and hunger, as existing food supplies and medicines could be transported or produced more quickly and efficiently. We have the technology now to feed the world, but governments still use hunger to control or even exterminate people, and some regions simply can't afford what it would take to grow their own food. I think a free source of energy would help there, and it would free up tremendous resources for other purposes.

I'd pick hunger over disease because I think hunger is more basic, and more dehumanizing. It stifles all incentive to invent or create or improve. Humans become more like animals, living for survival only. It helps spread disease by weakening an entire region. And it is a painful way to live, as well as a painful way to do. We have too much to eat in our society, and still we suffer if we go hungry a few hours. Too many people go hungry their entire lives, not only wondering when they will eat again, but if they will eat, and if it will be enough to keep them alive. And hunger cripples entire regions, not just a percentage of the people in a region. It's a very Republican style disease, in that it attacks the poorest. I think truly eradicating hunger would reduce disease a great deal, too.

Extended life spans and space exploration strike me as very Patrician goals compared to eradicating hunger. Disease is somewhere between hunger and glory science for me, since the cures to diseases will still be controlled by governments and wealth, and won't help regions where hunger has decimated everyone.

IMHO. Could be wrong. Usually am.

[Lorien]

19. Fossil fuels contribute to climate change, which will make hunger a

far greater issue than it already is (droughts, floods, dead zones in oceans, biodiversity loss, land erosion, etc.). Some of the most exciting new clean and renewable energies being developed will be quite cheap in the long run, making food production far more possible in poor and remote regions.

[tocqueville]

5. end of poverty is not on the list

you don't need an emerging technology for that, only an honest government that redistributes resources

[jobycom]

10. I'm not sure I agree

You have to have the resources to redistribute, and an honest government doesn't ensure those. Those resources have to be created, or recovered, or claimed, and they have to be distributed, and for those you need technology. And incentive. The thing about government is that it will always attract the least scrupulous, so it will never be honest. The people have to monitor it and regulate it, and for that, they need an economic footing completely separate from the government, so that the government can't control them through access to necessary resources like food and water, as happens in Africa, for instance.

If you're only talking about America, then I agree, a better government could eliminate what we call poverty, as long as it doesn't try to control all wealth. But in other places in the world, poverty is not a question of poor healthcare and lack of good food for 15% of the people, it is the complete absence of food, clothing, medical care and often shelter. Governments don't have the resources to distribute, even if they had the honesty. It seems like eliminating hunger is a more basic goal.

[tocqueville]

20. there are enough resources

to sustain 10 billion individuals. What mean with an "honest government" is a democratic system (trough elected bodies) that can manage the redistribution. An "honest government" can create resources where they don't exist by managing for the needs of the people and not the greed of a few.

That's the basic difference betwwen let say a more European approach and the American libertarian one. The later see red as soon you talk about government. So far this approach - which is even present in the "liberal" approach
has not succeeded very well.

"as long as it doesn't try to control all wealth" : the problem is not there (it's a bit of a fallacious argument), the problem is that in America a category of the population (very few) doesn't even tolerate that the society takes even a very small part of their revenues to redistribute it and are represented by governments that more or less stick to that view, the latest being an extreme.

I don't advocate for "socialism". Plenty of countries have succeeded very well by democratic processes to use a part of the commonly created wealth to implement free healthcare and sustain people in difficulties with a minimum of decent welfare. None of those system are perfect. But they are based on a democratic delegation of power to GOVERNMENT. To make it simple FDR is considered by conservatives and neocons as a "socialist". In Europe his policies are (were) decent right-wing policies.

[jobycom]

21. Now I'm sure I don't agree

You are talking about minor differences when you talk about the European versus American approach. Neither area really knows poverty when you compare them to Africa. Our system of governments aren't close to viable in most parts of Africa. Unless you are talking about military intervention from outside, the people are too hungry and too poor in many regions to even dream about our style of government. They need food before they can think about democracy.

One other thing you say that I disagree with. You seem to imply that the American approach to government and business doesn't work. That's silly. We have shortcomings, and our poverty issues are worse than Europe's, but we are a raging success compared to Africa, and even much of Central and South America, and parts of Asia. I see our shortcomings clearly, but they don't override our successes. There is a baby in that bathwater.

[tocqueville]

27. the keyword here is "government"

but I'll answer you privately because this goes beyond topic

[Dhampir Kampf]

7. Disease most painful?

Have you ever starved for a month?

I can't possibly imagine what the jews in the concentration camps felt like.

I'd rather die from a disease, than from hunger.

[Fleshdancer]

14. Obviously I've never starved for a month

but have you died of disease? Let's be honest with ourselves...neither of us really know. I was honest with what I thought at the time of taking the poll but I don't pretend to think I'm right either way.

I thought about the pain factor and I still think I would rather die of hunger than disease. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this since we're both fortunate to not have to experience either.

[skids]

8. Easy. Energy.

...because a supply of energy is both essential and encouraging to all of the above. From it, the rest may follow. Without it, none of the above will come to be.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Exactly. n/t

[ancient_nomad]

9. I took this same poll......

today. I had a very difficult time, also, with this question. I chose "end hunger". Dying from starvation is a horrific death - also very painful. I felt even with genetic engineering it would be next to impossible to eliminate all disease due to viruses' ability to change, and their sheer numbers. Swear it took me over an hour to do the entire thing, and I was very frustrated on a few of the questions.

Will be interested in seeing the responses to your question. Good post.

[Fleshdancer]

16. it took me that long to finish the poll too

it wasn't an easy poll. In my mind, dying of hunger or dying of disease was equally horrific. I chose dying of disease because I was afraid (ignorant?) that it effected more people. I don't know if this is true, but like I said, I couldn't choose both.

[pitohui]

11. extended lifespan

sorry life is abt survival and if i am not alive i don't really care abt the rest

[Salviati]

12. End to fossil fuels...

because with cheap clean energy we can get a good handle on trying to solve the other problems, and solving one of them magically without the energy to support it would likely be a disaster. Eliminating disease, hunger, or prolonged lifespan would make the population and demand for resources boom even more than they are now...

[dweller]

13. i'd like an answer

to why i haven't gotten the latest Zogby poll :(

been receiving the polls for at least a year, and have read about this one several times but still not gotten my invite :shrug:

dp

[misanthrope]

15. Choices 1,2 and 3...

...are completely counterproductive without drastically reducing the world's population via education and birth control. All those aforementioned choices will lead to without it is overcrowding, greater environmental damage and mayhem.

Ugly but true.

[Fleshdancer]

17. but that wasn't an option

with just the choices given, what would you choose?

[misanthrope]

22. Neither is...

...worldwide chaos and tragedy but that's the end result of those choices without negative population growth first.

[Lorien]

18. You can help end hunger by ending fossil fuel use and using clean

renewable energy.

Climate change will quickly effect food production, from floods in some areas to dustbowls in others. Cheap renewable energy would make energy available to poorer nations and most likely more remote areas, making food production more efficient. Plus there's the added bonus of no more reasons for BushCo and company to invade other nations (historically, most wars are over resources).

[XOKCowboy]

24. I answered fossil fuels.

I didn't like the bioengineering aspects of world hunger and disease. There were some wierd choices and wordings.

[SoCalDem]

25. Don't you love the Sophie's Choice questions they ask?

Why don;t they use ranking.. 1-10..

There are enough resources and enough brain power to address ALL of those issues, and solving some of them, contribute directly to solving the others..

a lot of world hunger could be solved by making sure that people have access to land & water so they could grow their own food..and we could quit choppiing down every rainforest on the planet..for starters

Malaria prevention can be easily managed with generic drugs...available NOW.. It;s distribution that's causing problems..

AIDS, unfortunately will just have to run its course unless we can get enlightened people to "talk real" to people who probably don;t want to hear the message..or live the life necessary to prevent the spread of the disease

4 or 5 more decades of life sounds like a horrible idea..of course if I lived in a camp in Darfur, I might think it was a great idea..

ending reliance on fossil fuels has always been a good idea, and the technology already exists..Just try getting the oil-folks on board until they have sucked every last drop from the earth..

space exploration's ok , but we do have a lot on our plate down here..

[entanglement]

28. It is fascinating to see people's unrealistic expectations from technology

The world hunger problem has been shown many,many times to be a political one, not a technological one.
An "end to disease" is a chimerical goal, as there is good evidence to believe that the bugs are getting better at resisting drugs. I seriously question the meaning of an extended life-span with poor quality of life. And advances in propulsion needed to explore the nearest star system (let alone the 'universe') are currently firmly in the realm of science fiction.

Why not focus on realistic possibilities in current and emerging technologies instead of indulging in flights of fancy?

[rucky]

29. Hunger is the most basic need on the list...

no contest