>the work of people like this is what allows us to write things on screen, instead of sitting in a cave. This is a pet-peeve of mine in arguments about the fut

>the work of people like this is what allows us to write things on screen, instead of sitting in a cave. This is a pet-peeve of mine in arguments about the future. Why is it unthinkable that someone could support the development of one technology, and not the other? Better yet, why is unthinkable that someone could prefer that one technology gets developed _before_ another? Yes, implicit in technological development is a dependency chain, but that does not imply every technological advancement is predicated on every other technological advancement. Pretending that all technology/research has the same social utility is ridiculous (not that you are specifically doing so). Unfortunately in this case, it appears we are developing a great method for extincting species without also having a method prevent that.