Bolded part in your post is kind of analogy of ‘interior and latest model furniture’ i have given in my post earlier.
Just see how people mostly use desktop systems and mobile phone. As i said you don’t know more than one percent of what of your smart phone can perform. Somewhat similar is the case with desktop system. Then why not use cheap things to fulfill your needs. You are missing the point of need. If you think that endless (blindly) possibilities of fun and entertainment is need then you are rightly influenced by media.
I can go into details but i dont think it would work.
Now, please answer precisely that who is offering this stuff to people that cause wrong falling in to temptations???
I am trying to settle the discussion.
I think I mentioned that one cannot take desktop outside. it cannot fit in the pocket.
For those who do not want to use smartphone and prefer desktop and think they have no need for smartphones, then they can just not buy smartphone.
But a lot of people have the need to use something outside. Not just for entertainment,… for their needs. Corporate does not create needs, it simply provides items which people need. That’s all.
Why did you even buy desktop Aijaz bahi? Wasn’t it your need? Or was it for entertainment?
Before desktops people used to send letters via mail and pay for it every time (and still do) but a lot of people use desktops (and smartphones) for e-mails…free of charge no matter how many emails or conversations are made. They pay internet fee, and that’s all.
If you say it was your need, then there you go. There are people who need smartphones. Maybe not others.
Speaking of internet…need or fun, it all depends on the person not on technology.
You didnt answer my question, if people are falling in to temptations, who is offering them such stuff?
by that logic anyone have the right create anything, people are wise enough to buy not that stuff. Then same is the case with rule of law, there is no need to implement rule of law people are wise enough to follow the trafic rules.
Technology is not free from laws. But those laws are made to control production, their obvious harm to people and potential abuse as each and every society feels appropriate.
If the laws are approving them, then it is up to individuals to decide. The consumers of technology have ultimate responsibility.
Does that mean i cannot give you example or analogy? I just give you example of implementation of Law.
However, my question still stands that is “people are falling in temptation, but who is causing this problem?” You have acknowledged that problem exists at one end but denying that problem exists at the other end.
please answer my question precisely.
Technology gives people, towns, cities, nations competitive edge. The physical resources in the world are limited and technology enables people to use those resources more efficiently, gaining superiority over others.
That’s the sole reason why advancement would never stop.
no one is blaming shaitan, we are identifying what is wrong with this ‘blind’ advancement.
we are dicussing needs, buying your children icecream has nothing wrong if you have money.
again you are missing the problem at the other end. do you see golay wala in streets of developed countries? reason is a check that govt have on selling food. its not like let them sell what ever they want and let people decide theselves if it is good or bad.
although it may not be possible to place similar checks on smart phone like extravagances but the thesis of thread is “with this craziness world is not heading in right direction”.
And if you know what i am trying to say why are you escaping my queation?
if people are wrong falling in temptations then what should we call those who are causing it?
you cannot qoute a single line from my posts where i have said like advancement should be stopped. i said advancement should be bounded by needs not by artificial needs and making people fool.
people in Lahore have latest gadgets and vehicles is not because of need but pervasive trends of this modern world.
there are two angle of context of this thread. one is need based development and other is craziness.
I dont understand why people are jumping to conclusion that I am anti technology. technology advancement is good but not all the advancements are based on needs , actually not most of advancements today are based on needs.
its another story that the system is flawed.
when you develop an new model of car you need to incorporate more advanced information technology to counter theft. its another story that sytem itself is flawed.
and how can i dare to speak against this system in such a pervasively influenced by modern trends environment
but vat if satan is using technology to lure innocent humans towards sin? he be like, hey innocent human, here, use this ipad to forget all about the big guy in the sky who made you solely to worship him and now you be happy and busy!
I did not say that is ‘should’ or ‘should not’ be stopped. I just said that given limited resources, technological advancement is the ONLY way for several economies to compete and survive. It is not possible to restraint such advancement, like it or not. Its the story of human civilization. Throughout history, the civilizations that were technologically advanced always dominated the less advanced ones.
P.S. Personal gadgets are a tiny part of recent technological advancements.
They are both only about 11 or 12 minutes each … listen to them please … getting bored at such short videos is not favourable - it means you are trying not to listen …
The argument underlying these is reflecting my earlier statements …
Technology is driven by sales and is focusing more on habit and that what drives people to spend … In the food industry we are led to believe that GM food is the way to cure hunger … the argument being made here is that mass food made in such ways that end up ruining the industry has long term ill effects to the living world … it is better to eat wholesome … we are getting an inflation in food by thinking that the strains that have been modified are better because they are more resilient which make stronger pests and so on … we are escalating the cycle of (pest vs resilience) sort of like what is happening with antibiotics - rather than providing real cures … It is all about how industry can profit from the food and then again from the protection against the pests … it is is vicious win win situation for the people in industry.
This is benefiting the few … that is technology at its heart … it is not neutral because it is spearheaded by a mechanism that is not in our direct control as individuals and is definitely not in our interest, but we are made to think it is … A few may make person benefit … but even those will suffer some side-effect.
.