3 ms·

This sort of rhetoric is borderline insane, though. Yes, bad things happen even with tech. But they are typically far less dramatic than what happened before th

This sort of rhetoric is borderline insane, though. Yes, bad things happen even with tech. But they are typically far less dramatic than what happened before the tech. Oh totally, war was much less dramatic before atomic bombs. /s Edit for substance: Tech is a massively double-edged sword, and looking only at the benefits is dishonest. You have nuclear power, which is truly amazing, and nuclear weapons, which may yet end us all. You have vaccines, but also biological weapons, medicines and poisons, better plows, better swords. You can argue that tech is a net positive, but if it’s anything, it is dramatic.

tomnipotent 9y ago
Despite the incredible destructive weaponry we can deploy today, the last half-century has been the least bloody in history. Technology has drastically improved both our ability to create and destroy, but fortunately we're doing more of the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
- kitsune_ 9y ago
  Let me argue that the only reason for this is the atomic bomb and not 'technological progress' as a whole. Technology's 'ability to create' has virtually no bearing on any of this in my opinion.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  To add to what Kitsune has said, the violence has simply changed into a series of proxy wars between nuclear powers, at the expense of non-nuclear powers. The other part is that for the first time in over a thousand years, Western Europe isn’t almost constantly killing itself in endless wars.
  - tomnipotent 9y ago
    > the violence has simply changed into a series of proxy wars between nuclear powers, at the expense of non-nuclear powers Still thanks to technology (e.g. radio, satellite, improved espionage capabilities). > Western Europe isn’t almost constantly killing itself in endless wars Once again, thanks to technology. We're now able to do more for less, and many of the motivations for war (resources, land) are no longer as much as a contributing factor.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      For values or “us” which are nuclear powers and their close allies. Of course if “thanks to technology” we end up destroying ourselves with nuclear weapons, climate change, or something as yet unforeseen then really what has come of it? Fixing nitrogen for fertilizer also led to the democratization of high explosives. Nuclear power and weapons are linked. Look away from your personal circumstances for a minute and consider the trajectory overall, for everyone, and not just you. This Panglossian “optimism” is downright destructive. It feels a lot like being in an airplane which has entered an unpowered, uncontrolled descent, and the guy next to tells you to be happy, it’s a miracle that we’re flying, humans never flew in all of history until recently.
      - tomnipotent 9y ago
        This entire comment doesn't make any sense. > Look away from your personal circumstances for a minute and consider the trajectory overall, for everyone, and not just you. Arrogance much? Very presumptuous to assume you're doing this while the rest of us are not.
- wombatpm 9y ago
  Past performance does not guarantee future returns. One could say something similar about the 50 year period ending in 1910. WWI, WWII, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot really skew the average.
  - def_true_false 9y ago
    If you look at the death toll in proportion to the population at that time, even that 50 year period will be less bloody than some others in the past.
sctb 9y ago
We need you to please up the insight/provocation ratio of your comments, no matter what you're replying to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Understood, I edited it to include more details about what I was trying to get across.
  - sctb 9y ago
    Thank you.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      Not a problem, I was wrong and appreciate the feedback.
askafriend 9y ago
Some feedback: the way you present your arguments is not useful or productive to discussion. This has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with your premise. It's the delivery of the message that you need to improve if you want it to come across in a way that is productive.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  I appreciate the feedback and agree, I did a poor job. Hopefully my edit has added some much-needed substance.
  - murftown 9y ago
    That's funny because I was just thinking how much I appreciated your comments. Edit: but of course I didn't see it before the edit ;)
  - askafriend 9y ago
    And likewise - I appreciate your edit and I think your point is stronger for it (regardless of whether I agree or disagree with it)

tomnipotent 9y ago

Despite the incredible destructive weaponry we can deploy today, the last half-century has been the least bloody in history. Technology has drastically improved both our ability to create and destroy, but fortunately we're doing more of the former. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

kitsune_ 9y ago
Let me argue that the only reason for this is the atomic bomb and not 'technological progress' as a whole. Technology's 'ability to create' has virtually no bearing on any of this in my opinion.
IntronExon 9y ago
To add to what Kitsune has said, the violence has simply changed into a series of proxy wars between nuclear powers, at the expense of non-nuclear powers. The other part is that for the first time in over a thousand years, Western Europe isn’t almost constantly killing itself in endless wars.
- tomnipotent 9y ago
  > the violence has simply changed into a series of proxy wars between nuclear powers, at the expense of non-nuclear powers Still thanks to technology (e.g. radio, satellite, improved espionage capabilities). > Western Europe isn’t almost constantly killing itself in endless wars Once again, thanks to technology. We're now able to do more for less, and many of the motivations for war (resources, land) are no longer as much as a contributing factor.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    For values or “us” which are nuclear powers and their close allies. Of course if “thanks to technology” we end up destroying ourselves with nuclear weapons, climate change, or something as yet unforeseen then really what has come of it? Fixing nitrogen for fertilizer also led to the democratization of high explosives. Nuclear power and weapons are linked. Look away from your personal circumstances for a minute and consider the trajectory overall, for everyone, and not just you. This Panglossian “optimism” is downright destructive. It feels a lot like being in an airplane which has entered an unpowered, uncontrolled descent, and the guy next to tells you to be happy, it’s a miracle that we’re flying, humans never flew in all of history until recently.
    - tomnipotent 9y ago
      This entire comment doesn't make any sense. > Look away from your personal circumstances for a minute and consider the trajectory overall, for everyone, and not just you. Arrogance much? Very presumptuous to assume you're doing this while the rest of us are not.
wombatpm 9y ago
Past performance does not guarantee future returns. One could say something similar about the 50 year period ending in 1910. WWI, WWII, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot really skew the average.
- def_true_false 9y ago
  If you look at the death toll in proportion to the population at that time, even that 50 year period will be less bloody than some others in the past.

sctb 9y ago

We need you to please up the insight/provocation ratio of your comments, no matter what you're replying to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

IntronExon 9y ago
Understood, I edited it to include more details about what I was trying to get across.
- sctb 9y ago
  Thank you.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    Not a problem, I was wrong and appreciate the feedback.

askafriend 9y ago

Some feedback: the way you present your arguments is not useful or productive to discussion. This has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with your premise. It's the delivery of the message that you need to improve if you want it to come across in a way that is productive.

IntronExon 9y ago
I appreciate the feedback and agree, I did a poor job. Hopefully my edit has added some much-needed substance.
- murftown 9y ago
  That's funny because I was just thinking how much I appreciated your comments. Edit: but of course I didn't see it before the edit ;)
- askafriend 9y ago
  And likewise - I appreciate your edit and I think your point is stronger for it (regardless of whether I agree or disagree with it)