3 ms·

What it breaks, we will learn to fix. With tech improving as fast as it is starting to do, the species really does need to take a more gung-ho attitude. Rush i

What it breaks, we will learn to fix. With tech improving as fast as it is starting to do, the species really does need to take a more gung-ho attitude. Rush into the future, because the harm of the present can best be undone with technologies we don't have yet.

yters 19y ago
And if it can't?
- curi 19y ago
  We can't avoid all problems, so the general strategy we need is to get more knowledge so we can be better at solving unforeseen problems. And it's not reasonable to fear the unknown on principle. Being "conservative" by avoiding an advance doesn't make sense in isolation. It might cause a problem. It also might solve one. We don't know that. We do know technology is useful. But "gung ho" doesn't sound right. Sometimes we have a substantive idea about a way an upcoming technology could be dangerous. In that case we should respect and consider that foresight, not just charge forward anyway. BTW David Deutsch's TED talk touches on this.
  - yters 19y ago
    Yeah, that's more what I'm getting at. I don't like straight knee jerk conservatism, but sometimes it is a useful instinct and it warns us to count the costs.
    - curi 19y ago
      IMO revolutionaries are worse than conservatives. They are more destructive. And there's more ways to be wrong than right. It's a bit like doing rewrites of major production systems. Not a good idea. But of course it's much worse because human culture is more complex than a computer program. But also like major production systems, we definitely can improve them. Now we just need unit tests for cultures to make refactoring easier.
      - yters 19y ago
        Plus, most revolutions aren't really revolutionary in idea. They mainly retread tired, broken ground that the "conservative" position was meant to fix. I'd say a significant amount of innovation in the political, social, and philosophical realm is merely forgetfulness.
        curi 19y ago
        Want to give a couple edifying examples? PS Have you read any Edmund Burke? Got an opinion of him?

yters 19y ago

And if it can't?

curi 19y ago
We can't avoid all problems, so the general strategy we need is to get more knowledge so we can be better at solving unforeseen problems. And it's not reasonable to fear the unknown on principle. Being "conservative" by avoiding an advance doesn't make sense in isolation. It might cause a problem. It also might solve one. We don't know that. We do know technology is useful. But "gung ho" doesn't sound right. Sometimes we have a substantive idea about a way an upcoming technology could be dangerous. In that case we should respect and consider that foresight, not just charge forward anyway. BTW David Deutsch's TED talk touches on this.
- yters 19y ago
  Yeah, that's more what I'm getting at. I don't like straight knee jerk conservatism, but sometimes it is a useful instinct and it warns us to count the costs.
  - curi 19y ago
    IMO revolutionaries are worse than conservatives. They are more destructive. And there's more ways to be wrong than right. It's a bit like doing rewrites of major production systems. Not a good idea. But of course it's much worse because human culture is more complex than a computer program. But also like major production systems, we definitely can improve them. Now we just need unit tests for cultures to make refactoring easier.
    - yters 19y ago
      Plus, most revolutions aren't really revolutionary in idea. They mainly retread tired, broken ground that the "conservative" position was meant to fix. I'd say a significant amount of innovation in the political, social, and philosophical realm is merely forgetfulness.
      - curi 19y ago
        Want to give a couple edifying examples? PS Have you read any Edmund Burke? Got an opinion of him?