Is It True That The More Technologically Advanced A species Is, The More Benevolent They Are?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think technology can make a leap forward from explosion concept to implosion concept. This would make us more free with less stress. Implosion technology is more in line with the imitation of nature.

Also, I don’t think we have a choice about advancing technology. We will always try to find a better way through invention. “Bees make honey and humans make technology.”

The threshold between benevolence and malevolence, in my opinion, is gauged by the amount of fear. With fear paranoia becomes a controlling factor. Fear is the basis of all sin.
 
People, globally, have never been less free. Fear is nothing. The soldiers on the Beach at Normandy knew what they were facing and knew they had a job to do. They did it.

2 Timothy 1:7:

New International Version
For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline.

New Living Translation
For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.

English Standard Version
for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
 
laylow said:
I’d say the less desperate a society is, the more benevolent they tend to be
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure—I’m amazed at how generous the poor are. I’ve seen instances with my own eyes of people who have kids and work more than one job to make ends meet turn around and take in their family member who is truly destitute along with their several children…

Sometimes desperation makes you turn to others for cooperation and survival.

It’s easy to get selfish when you’re comfortable—out of laziness and complacency, rather than from greed or malice.
 
IMO no. We have an example from not long ago with the industrial revolution. The European powers became technologically advanced very quickly and what did they do? go colonize, exploit/take advantage of the rest of the world in a race for power and control of resources.
 
po18guy said:
The converse is actually more arguable.
Click to expand...
It does seem to be the case. But like Beryllos said…
Beryllos said:
It is not that technology makes us benevolent. Rather it is that certain kinds of benevolence are necessary in order for a species to develop technology.
Click to expand...
I think in the case of an advanced alien species with the capability to travel to different worlds, it seems they would have had to overcome many of the social barriers or “malevolence” that we have in order to develop that far. Otherwise they would have destroyed themselves before reaching that level of technological success.

Having said that it is true, at least with us, that technological advancement can become a tool for evil. But i think many of the wrongs that happen in the world are due to lack of something, whether that be lacking the means to production or a lack of resources. Hopefully the advancement of science and technology will curb the type of evil that comes from a lack of resources.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
I would have died along with millions of others if the US or former USSR thought like that. A new cargo drone under development through a DARPA contract is made out of aluminum and wood. Compared to any other comparable system, it is super cheap.
Click to expand...
Stand down agent, that’s top secret.
 
There’s definitely a problem making the connection. As a matter of course we are becoming more advanced technologically speaking. But we are also healthier than we were. We are also more connected with each other. We are generally better off financially. Who is to say that any one of those facets of our existence (or any combination) are responsible for a greater awareness of moral inequities?
 
There is an assumption, which is made a lot in science fiction. A Technologically advanced aliens species is either extremely malevolent or indifferent to other beings in the universe, or extremely benevolent.
Click to expand...
The Star Trek epic illustrates a benevolent federation, but it does not give very many details about the economic system. The drive for power and wealth seems to corrupt an otherwise benevolent civilization. Desperation to acquire resources causes war and aggression. Maybe the key to benevolence would be a more spirit centered culture and technology that springs forth from the heart. We, definitely, need God’s guidance.
for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
Click to expand...
Tyrants instill fear to gain power and wealth. If they don’t know the bible or they ignore God’s guidance they will continue to corrupt civilization regardless of high technology or no technology.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
I’m not so sure—I’m amazed at how generous the poor are. I’ve seen instances with my own eyes of people who have kids and work more than one job to make ends meet turn around and take in their family member who is truly destitute along with their several children…
Click to expand...
It depends on how you are defining poor. I am certainly not using the modern 1st world definition, but the 3rd world definition, which has fit most of humanity up until this point. When your main concern is not starving to death, or having clean water, being “good” to others is of minimal concern.
 
The original Star Trek was a highly military organization. It was obviously clear-cut good guys versus clear-cut bad guys. That they would consider the motives of the attacking party and not just kill any and all aliens represents a part of conflict that Hollywood rarely shows: surrendering to the opposing group in a limited engagement in the field, taking prisoners, and inflicting enough damage so that the enemy withdraws. I can’t imagine a movie where both sides are shooting away and the commander announces a major withdrawal 20 minutes in.
 
I can’t imagine a movie where both sides are shooting away and the commander announces a major withdrawal 20 minutes in.
Click to expand...
I have never thought of it that way. It is usually a scenario where each side is trying to avoid an interplanetary war. So, I guess they test each other’s ability to make war as a demonstration of balance of power. Is it similar when the Americans and the Russians maintain a nuclear arsenal and show off their latest technology? I think Reagan defeated the communist regime with economic might. In WWII we were industrially isolated from attack so we were able to produce weapons faster than Germany and Japan. If you look at the comparison between German quality and American high production during WWII the Germans had better aircraft engines and they were ahead of us in rocket technology. The me 109 had superior mechanical tolerances as compared to our technology. How did they do it? No one knows how. They had to build stuff that would last because they did not have the industry and resources to build weapons and supply the battlefield like we could.
The response that I wrote is primarily about why we would become malevolent with the use of more technology. As if to say that technology is the cause of corruption and aggression. It does give armies the advantage if they have superior technological weaponry. They think they can invade another country because they have better technology. However, what is the motive for that kind of thinking and action?
 
The motive for most wars is gaining land and resources. That will not change for the foreseeable future. Around the turn of the last century, European countries decided to take over other countries who could not fight armies wielding superior weaponry. Sure, they fought but it did not end in victory. Look up “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” The British had a military/economic presence in foreign countries, most of which they lost during and after World War II.

In World War II, the Germans fielded the world’s first cruise missile (V-1), the world’s first ballistic rocket (V-2) and the world’s first jet-propelled fighter-bomber (Me 262), and a rocket plane or two. The V-1 could be shot down, the V-2 could not. Not to mention the world’s first jet bomber, the Ar 234. It could outrun anything the Allies had. Detailed studies of all German developments exist.

The motive is almost always wrong. But there is a difference between self-defense and wars fought because this or that country has more and better weapons than the other guy. The former USSR was considered a threat before the last bullets were fired in the European Theater in World War II.
 
Some claim most of the advanced technology in Germany came from the mysterious Vril society. I tend to believe that is mostly true.
 
There is no evidence of that. A look at the period between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II in 1939 shows nothing other than a lot of research and development by all combatants. The B-17 “Flying Fortress” was first flown in 1935 and ready to go in 1938. Meanwhile, in 1938, the Germans were involved in the Spanish Civil War, which included testing their new Ju 87 “Stuka” dive bomber in combat. Only a blind man could not see what was going on and what was coming. The most advanced German technology was developed by men with good imaginations and the necessary technical skills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top