The Future of Technology - What Will We Have to Share With Our Postmodern World?

If there were no technology in existence what would we be? Essay on hypotheticals Imagine a planet without technology. What would we be? A world without communication, transportation, education, entertainment, books, newspapers, movies, television, and all the paraphernalia that allow for the conveniences, comforts, and lifestyle of life. How long could it take before such a world was created?

What would we be like without technology? It seems to be such an obvious question, yet it still crops up often enough to be debated. Imagine a world without technology. Would we still have books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, transportation, communication, etc.? Would we still have the internet? What would we be able to do and what would be the effect on our society as a whole?

The answer to the question is interesting, yet it is more interesting to ask what would new life be like without technology. What would technology be like if everyone agreed that it was a good thing and everybody put their opinion on how technology should change. I have thought about this and have some thoughts on this.

As I write this, I have my laptop with me and I'm reading an e-book by Henry Cloud and he talks about the idea of a "New World." I have also thought about this and I believe there would be a new world, not necessarily a better place, but a different place. Would we be able to do all the things we do now and maybe even more? I think we might be able to do some of the things we used to do, such as traveling and interacting with others, but I believe that we would also be able to create new technology and that technology would help us achieve some goals that human beings have never been able to achieve.

Some people believe that there would be no use for technology in this new world. This could be true, as the technology is not inherently good or bad and it is used by all, including homo sapiens. Without tools and without needing to use them, I do not see why there would need to be a "New World" as the book suggests. And that brings me to the second point which is that without technology humans might be able to survive, but they would not be able to achieve the things humans do today.

It is possible that they might be able to survive, but they might not be able to accomplish much. So, it seems to me that it is OK to have this new technology if it helps the human race. For instance, if someone needs to cross a river to get to another town, they probably would not want to use a canoe and therefore it would be very helpful in this case. But if someone needs to have the ability to produce potable water, then there is absolutely no reason not to have one. In fact, that is what I would call a "New World" if you don't have water to drink, but if you have potable water, you do not need to have it piped in from somewhere else.

It seems to me that there are many benefits to having it, and therefore, I do not see why anyone should not have it seems like everyone agrees with this opinion. So, if someone wants to join the "new" human race, I would definitely encourage them to do so, and perhaps if we take into consideration what was learned in the last two books that were written by Enzo (the name of the author), then perhaps the concept of the "New World" would make sense to those who read these books, because the idea of a "New World" was very intriguing to those who read Enzo's books. In fact, I would recommend that you take the next two books into consideration when reviewing this topic, because they are truly fantastic books that will amaze you.

In other words, I do not understand the objection that people might have that without technology everyone will be forced to share their water, their food and their shelter. However, we cannot blame individuals who want to be part of the digital society, because it is much better than having nothing at all, which I think is what the "anarchy" theory is trying to tell us. After reading both of these books, I realize that giving away technology for free is a bad idea, and that we should instead focus on building the infrastructure that is necessary for a sustainable existence. Therefore, I do agree with the previous statement, "giving away technology for free is a bad idea," however, in the "age of automation", it might not be such a bad idea after all.