Short answer: You can't compare the two as if they're mutually exclusive because each depends on the other.

Politics influences technology by creating atmospheres conductive to the pace and direction of advancement in said technology (i.e., increased labor specialization, laws to encourage technology advancement, etc).  Thus, even when technology effects society, it is often because the technology is a result of the politics.

But at the same time, technology changes the politics, changing society.  Every instance of one military being technologically superior to another is an instance of technology reshaping the political field, changing the society.  More recently, the internet has had an insane amount of political influence.  However, once again, that technology was only around because the US funded the internet's development as a military communication system.

In short, it's a flawed question.  You can't ask which independent variable had a bigger impact on a dependent variable when both independent variables are then dependent variables on one another.

Alternatively, I could say you are creating a false dichotomy because politics IS a form of technology (in that, just as the assembly line was considered an advance in technology by advancing the way individuals organize with one another to increase productivity, the creation and advancement of government advances the way individuals organize with one another to increase productivity).

The wheel being invented did not lead Germany to war later.

Directly, no.  But indirectly, the invention of the wheel may have been important in determining which military power would invent the chariot, what proved to be an important military technology for Egypt.  While I couldn't draw a direct line between Egyptian history and German history (my best guess, although I don't believe it can be proven to have ever happened, would be the exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt, establishing the framework for modern Christianity), some interaction, even if indirect, could easily shape the way politics in Europe occurred and thus create an alternate long term European power structure which may have undermined the reasons for war.

Very... very... indirect.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > xeno syndicated wrote:

> "politics IS a form of technology"

The situation as I see it is that politics is a technology which seeks to have a governmental authority of some sort control, limit, and retain supremacy over the influence of all other technologies in a society.  Would you agree, Zarf?

Thus, when I ask the question of which is more influential, it is a legitimate question, for I am really asking if politics succeeds in that objective, or whether politics is not in control or has supremacy over the other technologies which might influence a society.

Look at it like this:  consider a room to be a nation or a given society, politics as the thermostat to control the temperature in the room, and the effects of technology as a whole as the weather.

In other words, is politics to be likened to the thermostat that one could adjust and by doing so could adjust the extent of influence other technologies have over a society?

Or is the influence of technology over a society to be likened to a heat wave that any amount of fiddling with the thermostat will have no effect over because the air conditioner is either non-existent or broken?

Okay, that's a much better way of putting the question. 

But have you considered your temperature analogy in reference to convection vs conduction, or the possibility of more significant/sudden influences like katabatic forces? You haven't specified under what conditions your analogy is meant to represent.

On which planes of existence is this analogy applicable--What do you think of the ancient Egyptians' take on this analogy? I'm referring to the mathematical dimensions of the Eye of Horus. People were debating this topic long before you got a computer. Are you dismissing classical and pre-classical philosophy on the topic?

What about the positioning of Orion's Belt at the time the ancient Egyptians formulated this theory? A coincidence is highly unlikely. Politics and technology don't interact in a vacuum.

My analogy doesn't that politics and by extension government is to control technology, but, rather, the SOCIOLOGICAL EFFECTS of technology.  This is what politics, government, the judicial system - the whole fiasco- does if you think about it.

In this light, now that you understand what I am saying, would you care to answer the question?  Or go ahead and try and nit-pick at the sound premises upon which the question is based.

Agreed with Simon.  As it is, you're talking in such an abstract manner that it may be difficult for people to understand the type of scenarios you want us to be considering.  This is the second time I've had an issue with the question with the response being a clarification of the question.  Frankly, I'm still not sure how we were supposed to derive that "Which has a greater effect on societies?  Discuss" was supposed to be a question about the sociological effects in relation to the question framing you established with your initial question.  In short, I'm still confuzzled. 

"In short, I'm still confuzzled."

"Why don't you tell us what you want us to think and then we'll think about whether we want to think it?"

I simply want to understand what is going on in the world, and HOW the changes we are experiencing happen; whether these changes are for the better or the worse.

At some point, technological changes affect societies to an extent that the majority of a society do not want.  Any technology that would diminish the prominence (both financially and politically) of the middle class would serve as an example: electronic funds transfer technology provides those with the knowledge of and access to that technology an opportunity to gain financially that those without the knowledge or access to that technology do not.  If this technology has been the major cause of the growing income gap, at what point do the sociological effects of the larger income gap result in a society that the majority do not want, and, moreover, results in problems for society that become more difficult to remedy as time goes on?

I think increasing wealth inequality is the unhealthy direction for society to take.  I am not suggesting that society needs to be 100% equal in its wealth distribution.  From my understanding of what makes democracies successful, it certainly can't be for the majority of the wealth to be held by 20% of the population.

For the moment, Kemp, since you have asked some intelligent questions and have not resorted to personal attacks, I'll stop ignoring you and reply:

"What is your understanding based on? How does the distribution of wealth inherently hurt the middle class when [...] their votes have equal value to those of the wealthy?"

The votes may have equal value on election day, but before and after election day, it is the political donations which matter.  When the process by which candidates has any chance of getting elected on election day depends on how much money a candidate can receive by contributors for his or her political campaign, and when it is the elite rather than the middle class who provide most of the contributions, the candidates who are elected by the majority to serve the interests of the majority are from day one of their position in office placed in a position of conflict of interest.

The effects of the use, lack of use, or misuse of technology looks as if it could result in economic collapse by 2030:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html

"However, the study said "unlimited economic growth" is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint."

The article mentions that it is up to politics, then, to provide for technology to allow for sustainable economies.

Is politics up to the task, I wonder?

politics vs technology

how about a Cyborg Prime minister ^_^