Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment.They're twisting the question to suit their watered down little arguments ;) (thats right Mr Affirmative team person... I know you're reading this :P ) So if we can stay true to the actual topic... they seem to think its "Bad beforetime technology should be left in the Beforetime... but their knowledge is ok ...and we'll throw in some of their non-evil technology too... but we're definitely not in approval of destruction of the world technologies…like sporks ;)â€
we didn't say we couldn't make use of their knowledge, just their technologies. (Books are current technology for Landfolk/gypsies, are they not? Even if they are from the Beforetime...)Thankyou… books are beforetime technologies… and whats this…they’re being used in the Land without the world blowing up…who would have thought :P …
We should add that we don't propose to "leave it in the past', careful study could be made if necessary as things are uncovered.Oh, I hope they say this...
There are two underlying assumptions in all of the arguments proposed by the affirmative team in the debate;Don't forget Arcana's post!
1. That technology in itself is inherently 'bad' - or at least any possible goodness in technology cannot be determined without allowing the inherently 'bad' technology to co-exist.
2. Humans are inherently 'bad' in the sense that they are power-hungry and thus will be ultimately corrupted by the inherent 'bad' nature of technology as a result.
The first argument centers around the concern that if beforetime technology was uncovered and used as second 'Great White' (or something of its equivalent) would occur. The question I ask is, is the possible chance of destruction justification for not trying to obtain the benefits that beforetime technology has to offer? Is the risk of 'annihilation' so great that society is willing to sacrifice greater understanding of the human body in order to provide improved medical treatment? Is society willing to sacrifice the knowledge and ability to mass produce food and water for the people in times of scarcity? Is society truly to afraid of possibility to take that risk?. I would ask where would we be today if our ancestors had not taken the risk to build a rotating circle that would lead to quick transportation for produce and people, or if our ancestors had decided that the flame that burns was too dangerous to permit us to use? Yes it is true that fire can cause great destruction - man-made fire in particular as it is not the natural cause of things BUT without it we would have no way to warm ourselves in the cold or a way to cook our meat to prevent contraction of bacteria. We as a society took that risk because of the possible benefits even though there were serious harms which the invention of fire could cause. To leave beforetime technology in the past is to declare widely the state of fear that we as a people live in and to demonstrate how that fear has controlled our aspiration.
2. It is assumed that if 'bad' beforetime technology was discovered it would inevitably fall into the hands of the 'evil' or the 'corruptible'. Thus to protect ourselves from such individuals we should hinder those who seek to achieve good with such technology - or even worse assume that such individuals do not exist. If this is the case, and if this is an accepted argument once again I ask why? This state of fear of destruction has suffocated society's aspiration to achieve greatness, to be better. But most importantly, if we assume that beforetime technology will eventually be used to destroy society by one such as Ariel, then what we are truly saying is that there is no hope. There is no hope that we can learn from the past, that we can be the beforetimers betters because of their mistakes, that we can do all that they sought to do to benefit the community at large without the destruction. We have the opportunity to seize their knowledge and do good because that is what we hope to do. The affirmative team may suggest that such a hope is idealistic or a false hope - that individuals are simply that selfish and corruptible. And yes, to the cynic such hope is idealistic but it is not false. There can be false promises or statements or smiles - but there is no such thing as false hope - there is simply hope. If Pandora almost destroyed the world by opening up her box - but managed to save it by shutting the box before hope escaped - then to give up on the hope of being a greater society than that which has come before us is ironically achieving what we hope to prevent - the destruction of the world.
But I will leave you with this thought - a once heard a statement which has always stuck with me 'Aim for the stars and you'll make it to the moon. Aim for the moon and you will never make it through the atmosphere'. To not make it out of our own world based upon two assumptions of inherent evil and the the sacrifice of the notions dreams, aspirations and hope is destruction of our society in itself.
our position affirms that having some knowledge of these technologies is a different matter to making use of them.How does the affirmative team expect to gain this knowledge, without bringing out Beforetime technology? At the moment, people in the land know little about such things. Where will you gain this information, if not by careful and controlled examination of beforetime technology? Books? These are also Beforetime technology.
Generating the kind of power required for Beforetime tech will do more damage, not less.But what about renewable energy sources? We believe that the Beforetimers must have thought of a more efficient way of using technology.
If Beforetime tech were to return, it would require power sources which we do not have.Again, how does the affirmative team know this? The Beforetimers may well have come up with fuel efficient technology, that will release very little pollution. The only way to confirm this is to study Beforetime technology, and be completely sure of the consequences before we use it. The arrifmative team is basing their argument on hear-say and guesses, and they have provided no proof or evidence to support their claim.
a source we would not be able to replicateWho says we need to replicate any of this technology? The Beforetimers have created more than enough technology to sustain us. With extensive study and exploration, we may eventually be able to make our own technology. However, this is not necessary. the Beforetimers were a completely technology driven race. Why would we have the need to create more technology when it is all there already?
Beforetime technology is complex and, sure, one may argue we could figure it out through trial and error, but it could end up being disastrous, for we do not know what danger lies sleeping.Experimentation is not the only way to understand technology. We can research the technology in Beforetime books. (I am told they have quite an extensive collection of books on all sorts of useful things!) You can ask the aid of a system such as INES. Experimentation would only be conducted when we have a sufficient understanding of what we are getting in to.
*speakers are making their way to the Gypsy Green to present their second points – upon the arrival of a group of people clad in purple robes, the crowd goes into an uproar*
‘Oh-my-Lud!’ cries one Obernetter, ‘It’s the Herders!’
(open link in another tab/window). *suddenly everyone hears music from the direction of the purple-clad figures*
The Moonfairies swirl around in panic.
‘How did the Herders get here?!’
‘Quick Swallow, we must evacuate!!’
‘Women, children and Moonfairies first!’
Swallow sits calmly and frowns. ‘I’ve never seen Herders in purple, and furthermore, why are they playing instruments?’
One of them takes off their hood, revealing MK, who says, “Sorry all, didn’t mean to startle you.†One by one the others take off their hoods to reveal the faces of the Affirmative team.
Swallow: What’s with the outfits?
Ness: Well, recently our team discovered something quite interesting and we were mucking around in some of the robes MK made, and didn’t have time to change before we got called here to present our next argument.
Deb: Don’t you think we look dashing, Swallow dear?
Swallow:... I’m not sure you’re creating the right impression.
MK: Silly. Wait til you see what we got in store for Act II!
Agyllian: Indeed: I shall be demonstrating that even if we could have such technologies back, we do not have the resources to support them.
MK: But first some music to set the mood! *signals Affirmative team to reposition their instruments.* One two three -
Anyway, I would like to start the debates with our rebuttals. A quick point we would like to make is that the two teams' definitions of "Technology" were vastly different, as our definition is more open to knowledge of this technology being seen as a separate thing to the technology itself.
The Negative team wrote ...
Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment.
"Knowledge of tools and crafts" in this sense is not covered by our own definition, however it clearly does not mean knowledge in general, and our position affirms that having some knowledge of these technologies is a different matter to making use of them.
2. We did draw attention to the fact that, considering the tech that Beforetimers had at their disposal, it could lead to another disaster like the Great White; a chance we believe is not worth risking. The point behind this argument was simply to highlight one reason to leave it in the past; the dangers of technologies in the wrong (or inexperienced) hands.
"The Negative team believe that technology from the Beforetime should be examined and learned from, but not all of it should be used. We believe that we should use only the technology that will do good."Zieria: *mutters* (and that sound clearly wasn't me, I was over there ) *points*
How does one define "good"? No single authority can tell people which Beforetime technology is good and which is bad. Weapons seen as good by the Herders are certainly not viewed as good by their victims. Furthermore, how exactly do the negative team propose to identify such "safe and good" items? It may look harmless, but we, as Gypsies and Landfolk, can never know if such an innocent, unassuming item is really the second-great-white-causing-spork!
Agyllian: *glances at Zieria, then continues* Seriously, though, as we said above, we are simply trying to highlight that these technologies can be dangerous in the wrong hands – we are not trying to deny all knowledge of these technologies
Obviously, the best way to avoid misunderstandings is to educate the Land people about beforetime technology- i.e.: bringing them to the forefront and explaining them instead of covering them up and pretending they don't exist."Uh, the first book mentions diagrams, textbooks, heaps in Marisa's study(late the guildmerge) There have been plenty of manulas found, INES is a huge resource. We COULD have the knowledge of the Beforetimers!
Sadly, learning in this context is just a fundamental that cannot extend to the complexities of Beforetime technology. While we are not wanting to deny knowledge of the Beforetime, we do not have the understanding of Beforetime sciences, and the time taken to understand such matters could be better spent focusing on practical learning to help us, the people of the Land: gypsies, Misfits and Landfolk alike. We shall be discussing this point later on.
If Beforetime tech were to return, it would require power sources which we do not have.
Any endeavours to develop power sources would almost certainly need to involve 'primitive' technology by Beforetime standards; something wasteful and harmful like the crude brown rocks would be used. This will lead to ‘pollution’ and with so many tracts of blacklands still scarred by the taint we cannot take the chance of destroying what remains.
],Yes but they could understand it, they are already trying to, this as taken from an early book, right? it could have changed... [/color]
Those few areas that ARE still powered such as the Beforetime complex and the Teknoguild caves housing Zebkrahn, are powered by an unknown source – a source we would not be able to replicate, like the crystal resonance. I mean, those ‘mysterious bright lights’ in the Teknoguild caves are an example of technology the Teknoguild still don't understand it
despite all their research. And even if we were to ask Ines how she and the complex were powered, we would certainly lack the resources and skill to duplicate this source.
As mentioned in our rebuttals, we do not understand Beforetime technology enough to use it sufficiently.Gah? Arghhh!
Beforetime technology is complex and, sure, one may argue we could figure it out through trial and error, but it could end up being disastrous, for we do not know what danger lies sleeping.
The Land is undergoing a revolution at this time. We no longer have the tyranny of the Council or Herders segmenting us and making us perform unnecessary tasks like collecting whitestick or collecting tainted material for demonbands. What can be done is to set up proper services for Landfolk, gypsies and Misfits alike that provide comfort and security. We can also set up education systems that range from developing our own necessary technologies to producing art like Kasanda once taught us to do. All of this stretches our workforce and definitely does not allow us to pursue extensive research into Beforetime technologies for the purpose of using or recreating them for ourselves.
We would like to emphasise that we do not wish to deny knowledge of the Beforetime, for it is knowledge that makes us aware of their past mistakes. This, and all these points are something we should keep in mind as we continue on our journey into the future; not to make the same mistakes the Beforetimers did.
TSC said...
Societies mimic the ones that come before. And the Laws of the Universe and Physics haven't changed, and we don't need more disastrous experiments, like Marie Curie dying from Leukaemia or the Chernobyl Disaster. The Beforetimers have much knowledge. We shouldn't waste it...
Generating the kind of power required for Beforetime tech will do more damage, not less.But what about renewable energy sources? We believe that the Beforetimers must have thought of a more efficient way of using technology.If Beforetime tech were to return, it would require power sources which we do not have.Again, how does the affirmative team know this? The Beforetimers may well have come up with fuel efficient technology, that will release very little pollution. The only way to confirm this is to study Beforetime technology, and be completely sure of the consequences before we use it. The arrifmative team is basing their argument on hear-say and guesses, and they have provided no proof or evidence to support their claim.
avialle
our position affirms that having some knowledge of these technologies is a different matter to making use of them.How does the affirmative team expect to gain this knowledge, without bringing out Beforetime technology? At the moment, people in the land know little about such things. Where will you gain this information, if not by careful and controlled examination of beforetime technology? Books? These are also Beforetime technology.
There seems to be some dispute about the definition of the topic.
The Macquaire Dictionary defines 'technology' to mean - "the branch of knowledge that deals with (the practice and application of) science and engineering."
"Leaving in the past" means to not dwell on things, and to leave it behind.
The negative team does not think it is possible to 'leave something in the past' while at the same time learning about it and exploring it. 'leaving Beforetime technology in the past' is not neccessarily meant in a literal way. To completely leave something in the past, you must move on from it and cease exploring it. The affirmative team seems to be attempting to say - "Yes, we want to leave technology in the past. But we also want to learn about it."
Frankly, the negative team finds this sentiment quite contrary and confusing.
avialle