Is nature worth more attention than technology

First, so I want to reiterate the proposition debated: is nature worth more attention than technology. While the burden of proof is fully Pro’s, I will emphasize my position by state [technology is worth more attention than nature] The Burden of Proof is Pro’s alone. This is Pro’s first debate, and I am relatively new too, but let me state the obligations for each party in the debate. Pro’s obligation: Since pro is defending the proposition, nature is worth more attention than technology, it is up to Pro to provide reasons and evidence for it. Con’s obligation: Since Con is on the “opposing side” Con only has “to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate.”[1] Rebuttals Rebuttal to (1) First, I am not quoting “famous people” but rather experts or universally respected academics. Quoting Stephen Hawking or Paul Krugman is not the equivalent of quoting Scarlett Johansson or Daniel Radcliff (unless it is an argument related to acting). “Standing behind your own words” is fine, but just because I claim and have opinions about which variation of String Theory is the most accurate or have opinions about the validity of a multiverse, this does not mean I am not obliged to provide evidence or support for those claims. John Nash, the Nobel-prize winning economist who developed game theory models and helped develop differential geometry, was a genius but he also suffered from schizophrenia. He could demonstrate the accuracy of his mathematical formulas but could not demonstrate the aliens and other non-existent people he thought he was in frequent communication with. The reason: because his mathematical postulates could be proven by way of logical reasoning and providing evidence by way of mathematical models. People however did not find other claim true, valid, or worth entertaining not because Nash “didn’t stand by his own words” but because, they had no basis in reality, and they were not supported by evidence or logic. A quick detour into the difference between opinion and argumentation: Opinion and argument are very different. Arguments and debate require claims, reasons, evidence, and refutation of warrants. This is the structure for every academic field. But let me quote famous acknowledge experts, who set the standard for research/argumentation in the humanities.[2] So to be clear any form of argument is going to answer: § What is your claim? § What reasons support it? § What evidence supports those reasons? § How do you respond to objections and alternative views? § How are your reasons relevant to your claim? Rebuttal to (3) Third Pro states: “I am not saying that we should abandon all of technology and go back to stone age. I'm just making a point that people should consider to what point is technology taking us.” Okay, so first this veers away from the proposition, again just to reiterate, Pro is arguing nature is worth more attention than technology. While my opponent has as of yet failed to provide a clear definition, and therefore Pro should provide “concept clarification”[3] for voters to discern or expose the underlying meaning of nature. However, since I convinced technology is as well as ought to be given more attention than nature, let me provide a modest definition and explanation of what technology is. What technology is and is not (based on definitions purposed and accepted by etymologists, linguists, sociologists, and philosophers, historians) The etymology of the word technology is of Greek origins and refers to the “collection of tools including machinery, machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures used by humans.”[4] Its contemporary usage in the United States is often attributed to Read Bain, the renowned American sociologist. Bain wrote, “technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communication and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them.”[5] But let me continue to clarify technology because the accepted uses that do not rely on conjecture are very important and relevant to this debate. Merriam-Webster defines technology as “the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area and a capability given by the practical application of knowledge.”[6] Albert Borgmann, a Canadian sociologist writes that technology is “an activity that forms or changes culture”[7] His field of expertise is technology and its application for the benefit of life as known. Borgmann notes technology predates both modern science and engineering. Borgmann provides the example of modern communication technologies, including the development of the internet and the computer. Question for Pro: The Stone Age was a product of technology it was not a natural. Rebuttal to (4) First, I do not “believe” anything. Nature is “a crazy bitch” by way of example: § Volcanoes § Floods § Droughts § Tornados § Hurricanes § Extinction of 98% of all species to very exist on earth Pro wants to project human qualities on the nature: Which is fine if it provided transparency to the debate. But so far, the anthropomorphic version of nature only obscures and conjures up some kind of vague new-age spirituality. There is nothing inherent wrong with have those feelings, but again, this is a debate not a recitation of conjecture and unsubstantiated postulates. Evidence: None. Con’s question: where can I buy an inexpensive robotic dog, cat, and parrot? I have never seen one, especially not one vaguely comparable to a living animal. The reality: Pro claim and reason is irrelevant to the proposition argued. I could make the claim men prefer real women over robotic women. Apart from some rudimentary versions in Japan, there are not really robots comparable in appearance, intelligence, coordination, or anything else. If something doesn’t exist then they will by default choose the thing that exists. Rebuttal to point (7) First, no one said people hate nature. In fact, that is irrelevant to the debate. The fact people construct parks actually validates my large point that technology is worth more attention than nature. How So? Building parks is an artificial construction; parks do not exist in nature. While the Burden of Proof is not mine, let me make a case for as to why technology is worth more than nature: [This list is composed based expert and widely recognized use and understanding of the word TECHNOLOGY]: Concrete Examples of technology [a list provided by a Wikipedia entry: List of Technologies] The list includes technologies before the early modern era. Special comments are placed that directly address some of the claims made by Pro of nature but are in fact unnatural, artificial creations of man. This includes: animal domestication Pro mentioned in Round Two (dogs, parrots, cats). These are examples of practical technologies develop “unnaturally” by man. Fire creation Stone tools Fur clothing Mining Logboat Bone flute Animal domestication String Painting Ceramics Sewing Rope Plant domestication Brick Metalworking Salt cultivation Leather Irrigation Equestrianism Weaving loom Wheel Military Technologies Acheulean hand axes Spear and Javelin Dart thrower Boomerang Mace Microliths Bow Defensive wall Astronomical Technologies Classical Era (3500 BC - 500 AD) Practical Technologies Writing systems Mummification Papyrus Ard plough Wheel Glass making Galley Pottery Metallurgy/Bronze forging Plumbing Abacus Iron Smelting Arch Alphabet Glass making Steel Saddle Lock Aqueduct Archimedes' screw Caliper Crane Odometer Watermill Paper Aeolipile If Pro is such an advocate of nature and the need for greater attention to it, then: Why use the internet? Why not debate me in nature? All you would have to do is walk to where my house using whatever naturally device you can find. Oh wait, even the use of stars in the sky would be a technology, an unnatural invention of man. Why does pro own a computer? Why does pro use electricity? Why does pro have some kind of artificial shelter? Isn’t this contradiction an example of why when Pro “in his heart” believes technology is worth more attention [1] "Burden of Proof." Rational Wiki. July 24, 2014. Accessed August 19, 2014. http://rationalwiki.org.... [2] Turabian, Kate, Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb, and Joseph Williams. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 52-54. [3] “Editor’s Introduction,” in D. Moran and T. Mooney, eds, The Phenomenology Reader (London & New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 1–26. [4] Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980). [5] Read Bain, "Technology and State Government," American Sociological Review (December 1937): 860. [6] "Definition of technology". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2014-08-19. [7] Albert Borgmann (2006). "Technology as a Cultural Force: For Alena and Griffin," The Canadian Journal of Sociology 31 (3): 351–360. [8] Christopher Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy