4 ms·

And the question is "were they wrong?" Soot-streaked cities of the industrial revolution had to be soot-streaked. They didn't have any other technology. They ha

And the question is "were they wrong?" Soot-streaked cities of the industrial revolution had to be soot-streaked. They didn't have any other technology. They had to use what they could to make better things. It provided better economic benefit, and ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). We're at a point where we have better things, but choose to not use them. It's intrinsically different than the industrial revolution. It's more like slavery in the relatively modern Western world. They knew better. They just chose to argue against their core morality because they could make more money.

LMYahooTFY 9y ago
I think there is a good argument to be made that we did (and typically do) opt for speed and low cost over safety unnecessarily. Though I think you could also argue that speed and low cost bring chain benefits that may balance it out. I feel we may never get quantitative answers without quantum computers crunching these numbers.
jjt-yn_t 9y ago
choose not to use them, as in 'collectively until we are wiser and... '
babyrainbow 9y ago
> ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). Yes. A number of generations had a good life. But what about the coming generations. What does the "progress at any cost", have in store for them? All things considered, what does the future look right now?
- virmundi 9y ago
  On the whole I still think things look pretty good. We're getting better at reducing our impact environmentally. We're getting better at purifying things we already messed up. We're also making tech to do all this cheaper so that if and when the rest of Asia become more modern, they might, just might, get to skip the polluting parts.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    >We're getting better at reducing our impact environmentally. We are getting better at reducing our environmental impact from tech that have been in use for decades. And that too after decades of negligence and denial. But we are still mostly blind about how todays new tech will impact environment if it becomes widespread. For example, most people who consider electric cars as something that will undo the environmental damage from fossil fuels, fail to consider what new kinds of impact these automobiles have on the environment. For ex. The batteries. If all of todays cars started going electric, that is a lot of batteries, right? How does the environmental impact look like after 30 years of growing use of these batteries? Just an example. The point is, the problem is our boundless affinity for new and better things. If it is cars, then we want suvs and we will have three of them if we can afford it. We throwaway old stuff and buy new stuff without a second thought. Most of the industries of the world are producing stuff that is planned to break in a couple of years. "Planned obsolesce", they call it. All of these tendencies are the dangerous ones. Not the use of a single thing like burning of fossil fuels or coal or using fertilizers. So I think it is the tendency of our current system to maximize consumption, the real danger, and I think there is very little hope that will change, and that will be our undoing...
- sbov 9y ago
  Probably a lot nicer than it did in the 1800s. You are also ignoring that many of the people of these former ages prematurely lost their life due to working with unsafe chemicals and/or machinery. Nevermind the mode of warfare where we would throw millions of unvalued lives into a meat grinder.
Terr_ 9y ago
> And the question is "were they wrong?" I think the more-useful question is whether folks knew the tradeoffs and made an informed decision in the first place. Should someone have made more effort to determine the tradeoffs before widespread implementation? Were any facts withheld or investigation curtailed? Did one group (wrongly?) benefit from another group's ignorance?

LMYahooTFY 9y ago

I think there is a good argument to be made that we did (and typically do) opt for speed and low cost over safety unnecessarily. Though I think you could also argue that speed and low cost bring chain benefits that may balance it out. I feel we may never get quantitative answers without quantum computers crunching these numbers.

jjt-yn_t 9y ago

choose not to use them, as in 'collectively until we are wiser and... '

babyrainbow 9y ago

> ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). Yes. A number of generations had a good life. But what about the coming generations. What does the "progress at any cost", have in store for them? All things considered, what does the future look right now?

virmundi 9y ago
On the whole I still think things look pretty good. We're getting better at reducing our impact environmentally. We're getting better at purifying things we already messed up. We're also making tech to do all this cheaper so that if and when the rest of Asia become more modern, they might, just might, get to skip the polluting parts.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  >We're getting better at reducing our impact environmentally. We are getting better at reducing our environmental impact from tech that have been in use for decades. And that too after decades of negligence and denial. But we are still mostly blind about how todays new tech will impact environment if it becomes widespread. For example, most people who consider electric cars as something that will undo the environmental damage from fossil fuels, fail to consider what new kinds of impact these automobiles have on the environment. For ex. The batteries. If all of todays cars started going electric, that is a lot of batteries, right? How does the environmental impact look like after 30 years of growing use of these batteries? Just an example. The point is, the problem is our boundless affinity for new and better things. If it is cars, then we want suvs and we will have three of them if we can afford it. We throwaway old stuff and buy new stuff without a second thought. Most of the industries of the world are producing stuff that is planned to break in a couple of years. "Planned obsolesce", they call it. All of these tendencies are the dangerous ones. Not the use of a single thing like burning of fossil fuels or coal or using fertilizers. So I think it is the tendency of our current system to maximize consumption, the real danger, and I think there is very little hope that will change, and that will be our undoing...
sbov 9y ago
Probably a lot nicer than it did in the 1800s. You are also ignoring that many of the people of these former ages prematurely lost their life due to working with unsafe chemicals and/or machinery. Nevermind the mode of warfare where we would throw millions of unvalued lives into a meat grinder.

Terr_ 9y ago

> And the question is "were they wrong?" I think the more-useful question is whether folks knew the tradeoffs and made an informed decision in the first place. Should someone have made more effort to determine the tradeoffs before widespread implementation? Were any facts withheld or investigation curtailed? Did one group (wrongly?) benefit from another group's ignorance?