Returning to the 'Real'

Having a discussion either pro or anti "technology" without any qualification is equivalent to having a discussion about whether you are pro or anti action.  Are you talking about the kind of action that involves kicking dogs or rescuing babies from burning buildings to take it to an obvious and rediculous extreme to make an obvious point.  We have been doing the "technology" thing for quite some time. The early technological promise was that our biggest future problem was going to be what to do with all the free time that we were going to have. Things have not panned out that way.  Does that mean all technology is bad, of course not.  It does appear that an indiscriminate use and thoughtless adoption of anything technological is probably not a good thing.  What we do need is a nuanced discussion about what kind of technologies we want to pursue.
Indiscriminate use of antibiotics both in animal feed and on humans is on the verge of creating a class of super bugs that our medical community is afraid that they will not be able to combat.  Does that mean that the invention of antibiocs was bad thing, of course not.  Unfortunately the mindless technology boosters answer is build more both quantitatively more and qualitatively mpre powerful drugs.  This is the same mindless projection of our past limited understanding of agriculture into the future that has turned it into toxic and soil destroying monster that it has become.

Research and science is taking us in a different direction.  We are beginning to understand that the human body is ecosystem with more DNA within from outside organisms than our own and that balance within the human microbiome is critical to human health.  The question of whether to plow with an oxen or with the latest tractor is no longer the question, it's whether we need to plow at all.  The old duality between environmentalist and technologists is fading as our understanding of ourselves and the natural world and the relationship between the two evolves.

Unfortunately the old technology boosters are fighting change holding on to an outdated newtonian science resisting the current changes afoot.  I guess I would agree, the same old story, change is hard to take.


It has recently become obvious that the prevalence of obesity has been rapidly increasing in the United States, as well as other countries, over the past two decades. This change has involved both sexes, all age ranges and various ethnic groups. The rising prevalence in children and adolescents is of particular concern because of the implications for negative effects on their morbidity and mortality in young adulthood.

Obesity is definitely associated with a relative increase in diabetes, cardiovascular disease, various cancers, respiratory disorders in sleep, gallbladder disease and osteoarthritis. It also has negative effects on a variety of other conditions such as pregnancy complications, menstrual disorders, psychological disorders, and urinary stress incontinence. It is an integral component of the metabolic syndrome, which is emerging as a key constellation of risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Dealing with this epidemic will require the mobilization of multiple constituencies and allocation of adequate resources. These approaches should be instituted with urgency.I'm common rail come from sensor