2 ms·
I think an argument could be made that we've passed a point at which technology is required for our species to survive. We can still hunt, farm, eat, and repro
by api 9y ago
I think an argument could be made that we've passed a point at which technology is required for our species to survive.
We can still hunt, farm, eat, and reproduce without it, but not at present population scales. As a result any technological failure would trigger an apocalyptic Malthusian scenario that would probably climax with global thermonuclear war over remaining resources.
I'd say we passed the technological point of no return on July 16th, 1945:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)
The giant "kaboom" heard in the desert that day was the sound an evolutionary ratchet clicking. It is no longer possible to go backward without catastrophe.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago"We can still hunt, farm, eat, and reproduce without it, but not at present population scales." But isn't that a double edge? As we've scaled so has the depth & breadth of the consequences of that expansion. I'm no Luddite. But this coin has two sides. It often feel as if we're having to reach further (and the risks increase) as one scientific solution leads to others, and so on.