Your Weekly Dose of Logic: Golden Age? Part II

So, I've laid out an argument for the idea that technology will gradually bring people together in a more symbiotic manner over time, thereby reducing war and augmenting health, both emotionally and physically. Now I wish to address some of the basic rebuttals to Scott Adams' post to explain why the arguments are fallacious or irrelevant to the point:

I though to get to some kind of "Golden Age" we'd have to first go through some kind of ... revolution. i.e. the Rennaisance? I mean doesn't there have to be some kind of reform of our government and society BEFORE we can get to the Golden Age?

Fallacy Category: Complex Question Fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance

The reason this is obfuscatory and fallacious is because of the fact that it is implying that reformation isn't occurring in the line of questioning...social reformation is perpetual--beit positive or negative, by high level of reformation as in democracy or in revolution as in monarchial systems--and as such, the point being made here is inaccurate. Every generation neurologically evolves based on experiential-dependent instruction, which implies no one person's situation is the same as the prior generation, more or less entirely interacting social bodies. History may appear to repeat itself macroscopically, but the reality is that evolution is an ongoing process, and given the human capacity to manipulate his environment, "anthroselection" is certainly entering a Golden Age because of technology.

There was a time, a couple of years ago, when I thought that the world was getting a little better. That finally, people started to learn to live together. That they started to understand that that is the only option to have a good life, without being killed or killing.
That was a time that I was optimistic and maybe not realistic. Then some planes flew into some buildings ...

Fallacy: Appeal to Fear, Red Herring?

Pretty prominent in politics today, this type of emotive appeal is very motivating because the reward pathways of the brain are emotionally driven by the amygdala and other limbic structures. Very primitive way of looking at things--the uniquely human features of the brain involve more calculated analysis, modulating emotions so as to not irrationally drive the brain due to prior trauma.



Most people simply don't understand that unless we quit producing more babies, all the technology in the world won't save us.

There will be no so-called "golden age" until this sinks in with the majority.

The time will come when we will long for the golden years of fighting over mere idealism and religion.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance with a Suppression of Evidence

This one is very bothersome because of the suppression of this point: it is not the case that the "production" of babies is somehow uncorrelated to technology; population explosion directly correlates to technological advances, as seen in the advent of agrarianism (and culture) 10,000 years ago. Population and interpersonal interaction itself drives technology via intellectual stimulation, as over 100 years of psychological evidence suggests. I am uncertain how overpopulation can even be qualified: if it is the case that population size and technology are congruous, then most certainly technology will "save us". See: the evolution of biomedicine in the 19th century if one disagrees.



A logic error at your arguments, Scott! Gotcha!

If economy at its present state is destroyed as technology developments you describe will surely render, maintaining trade links will not be that much important. And BTW, many wars of today are NOT fueled by economic reasons mainly but by cultural.


Fallacy: Straw Man Distortion

Economic exchange will be destroyed? I believe the reality is that economics will evolve to a point where more symbiotic exchange will become possible, NOT that reciprocal exchange will somehow die. This is an unqualified statement that defies millions of years of evolution. Technology has augmented and facilitated interpersonal exchange, evident in primate social systems such as orangutans (when socializing) and chimpanzees.

As one can see, naysayers often find intransigence in their arguments through being unwilling to argue logically.

Until next time, keep in mind that everything someone says or does really says something about themselves, such as fallacious reasoning founded in unhealthy emotional biases.