For purposes of plot at some point in the near future humanity is offered a choice (be it from benign aliens, personal intervention of God, etc) basically humanity can move to a sustainable small group/tribe based non-technological society. All a persons wants and needs will be provided for from birth to death with little effort on their part, it would be in a sense a return to an Edenic style of life and one of leisure and pleasure. But the catch is that technology and progress is banned, this is the lifestyle that humanity will experience from now on until the distant future. Think of a Hunter-Gatherer style of life but with none of the drawbacks.
Alternately humanity will be left alone to continue on its current technological path, with all its benefits and negative aspects.
There is a worldwide vote on the issue, what would you choose, and why?
(thread inspired by recently reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn and the Na’vi society depicted in the movie Avatar)
Progress. Stasis is death…and pre-technological societies are totalitarian beyond anything Mao ever dreamed of. The tribal elders determine everything.
Also, many of our best achievements can’t exist before advanced technology: symphony orchestras, laser light, computer chess, recorded TV shows, 3D printing, space probes. All gone.
The “global civilization” would fragment into hundreds of little cultures and societies, most with no contact at all with each other. There would be vastly less interaction. Travel would be limited: almost no one would ever go more than 50 miles from their village.
Also, although I do believe that the current human population of 7 billion is two orders of magnitude too damn large, I can’t be comfortable with limiting us to only a few million. That’s too small!
Supplying people with all their basic needs isn’t going to change human nature, there are still rocks and sticks, even if the sticks aren’t pointy. It will be chaos. I’ll stick with continuing the way things are now.
I’ll take progress. I am not content to mindlessly exist when I can strive to improve and explore. The striving makes us who we are.
Even if we hypothesize a tribal existence that never existed and would never be stable (for example, how do have a low-tech tribal existence without high rates of maternal and child death?)… I’d still favor progress.
Paradise. Progress is little more than a misguided quest for unobtanium (more happiness more of the time (all happiness all of the time?)). I’d jump off that train in a heart beat to focus as a group on finding happiness here and now (or whenever).
I’d say you have it wrong, Eden is/was already a technologically advanced Paradise (smartphones, tricorders, universal translators that even worked with animals), we chose a path of discovering how to make that work ourselves.
Technology is part of paradise, we just call such significantly advanced technology ‘magic’.
If the world were a paradise for me, you would hate it.
If the world were a paradise for you, your neighbors would hate it.
If the world were a paradise for your neighbors, the people in the next valley would hate it.
Contentment is not in human nature.
It is debatable how much control people have over their own lives, but we should not give up what we have. If we start relying on other beings to take care of us, we are either house-pets, or livestock.