4 ms·

I read the comment you replied to several times and couldn't find where it said that technology was only beneficial. Now your claim that is neutral is the stro

I read the comment you replied to several times and couldn't find where it said that technology was only beneficial. Now your claim that is neutral is the strong one, but also one very easy to test: Don't use or consume anything made possible by technology, if your life isn't impacted in any way then you're correct... In this isolated, anecdotal case.

ntsplnkv2 9y ago
> In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, Is what OP said-that is subjective. How is our world, better? Is it truly better? Sure-I have benefited from use of computers, but many people have been killed from use of computers (drones, for example). It is very possible that all of this technology eventually wipes out humanity, which would not be beneficial, would it? The claim that technology has made society better is a very strong one, which no argument was made as for why. Your test isn't a proper test. Technology is neutral in the sense that all of the good it has brought, has also brought upon lots of bad. For every piece of technology used for good(missiles for space travel) there is an equivalent use that has done harm. (Cruise missiles, which have killed scores of people.) I'm not debating that technology had impact-but to say it is all beneficial, is a huge stretch.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Nobody forces the development and adoption of new technology. So any successful technology is "better" for the people buying it. How far back would you go to claim that technology is not beneficial? Pre-industrial? Pre-agriculture? Pre-tool use? Technology made humans the most successful multicellular species we know.
  - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
    Actually new technology IS forced on others-see the countless peoples killed by weapons of war. They didn't choose to get bombed out by a GPS guided missile, did they? What about the people killed after the atomic bomb killings? Technology is forced on everyone. Things we thought were convenient (cars, ships, the ICE, fossil fuels) may now plunge the planet into chaos and cause immense damage to our environment. Many people who have never had the choice of owning a car are now suffering from droughts and famine because of fossil fuel burning. It's naive to say technology isn't forced. It is, and always will be. Again, easy for us to say in the west, especially the US. We've seen a lot of the good, but we too have seen the bad. It's typically neutral. Technology is not universally beneficial. You can go back maybe to the first group of humans who used a fire to survive a cold spell but since then, there has been destructive and constructive technology.
    - julianmarq 9y ago
      > Again, easy for us to say in the west, especially the US. We've seen a lot of the good, but we too have seen the bad. I, for one, am not in the US, pal; I'm in a third world country riddled with conflict and crime. Stop the sad regionalism. Your morality babble still doesn't change the fact that automation and technology have made us the most successful species. Even your ludicrous "for every good some bad has come" is false on its face. If it were true, the population would forever stay the same. > Technology is not universally beneficial. Again, nobody claimed it was, what was claimed was the net effect, and that has been positive. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time having a discussion with someone who thinks technology isn't "good" (and you do think that, you think it's "neutral", not "good")... over the internet. In other words: If it weren't for technology, you couldn't be whining about how awful it is from your iPhone, buddy.

ntsplnkv2 9y ago

> In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, Is what OP said-that is subjective. How is our world, better? Is it truly better? Sure-I have benefited from use of computers, but many people have been killed from use of computers (drones, for example). It is very possible that all of this technology eventually wipes out humanity, which would not be beneficial, would it? The claim that technology has made society better is a very strong one, which no argument was made as for why. Your test isn't a proper test. Technology is neutral in the sense that all of the good it has brought, has also brought upon lots of bad. For every piece of technology used for good(missiles for space travel) there is an equivalent use that has done harm. (Cruise missiles, which have killed scores of people.) I'm not debating that technology had impact-but to say it is all beneficial, is a huge stretch.

adrianN 9y ago
Nobody forces the development and adoption of new technology. So any successful technology is "better" for the people buying it. How far back would you go to claim that technology is not beneficial? Pre-industrial? Pre-agriculture? Pre-tool use? Technology made humans the most successful multicellular species we know.
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  Actually new technology IS forced on others-see the countless peoples killed by weapons of war. They didn't choose to get bombed out by a GPS guided missile, did they? What about the people killed after the atomic bomb killings? Technology is forced on everyone. Things we thought were convenient (cars, ships, the ICE, fossil fuels) may now plunge the planet into chaos and cause immense damage to our environment. Many people who have never had the choice of owning a car are now suffering from droughts and famine because of fossil fuel burning. It's naive to say technology isn't forced. It is, and always will be. Again, easy for us to say in the west, especially the US. We've seen a lot of the good, but we too have seen the bad. It's typically neutral. Technology is not universally beneficial. You can go back maybe to the first group of humans who used a fire to survive a cold spell but since then, there has been destructive and constructive technology.
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    > Again, easy for us to say in the west, especially the US. We've seen a lot of the good, but we too have seen the bad. I, for one, am not in the US, pal; I'm in a third world country riddled with conflict and crime. Stop the sad regionalism. Your morality babble still doesn't change the fact that automation and technology have made us the most successful species. Even your ludicrous "for every good some bad has come" is false on its face. If it were true, the population would forever stay the same. > Technology is not universally beneficial. Again, nobody claimed it was, what was claimed was the net effect, and that has been positive. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time having a discussion with someone who thinks technology isn't "good" (and you do think that, you think it's "neutral", not "good")... over the internet. In other words: If it weren't for technology, you couldn't be whining about how awful it is from your iPhone, buddy.