4 ms·

Can you give an example of why this is bad? What more do we really need in terms of technology, to survive as nations and be happy? Could this point in our achi

Can you give an example of why this is bad? What more do we really need in terms of technology, to survive as nations and be happy? Could this point in our achievement be enough? Maybe a drought of elevator specialists decreases the amount of elevators we can have. We have to walk up stairs more often. Not ideal. But maybe more people spend less time having and raising kids and more time working on themselves. Mental health improves and people are more compassionate toward themselves and others. I would choose that world, not actively fight against it.

pixl97 8y ago
>What more do we really need in terms of technology, to survive as nations and be happy? What timeline are we talking about. > Could this point in our achievement be enough? To ensure eventual extinction, yes. Modern technology is wholly dependant on a great number of unstable and unsustainable systems. Fossil fuels are the best example of a great technological boost that is destroying our atmosphere. Renewables, while so much better, are not without their drawbacks at a world civilization size. Still, it could create a nice, clean, and happy doomed world. Below us vast volcanoes, things not seen for tens of thousands of years, wait to explode below us threatening to blot out the sun for a decade (hope you don't depend on solar panels). Above us rocks the size of mountains race through the blackness of space at insane speeds waiting to find a gravity well and vaporize what is at the bottom of it. There exists threats, ones we've only come to realize exist in the past century, that can wipe mankind off earth in the blink of an eye. The solution to most of these is making sure we just aren't on earth, and become a spacefaring civilization. For that we will need technology far beyond what we have now.
- detcader 8y ago
  It's almost as if we are in Omelas, our worldwide festival of novelty and technology relying on a hidden destruction of the environment we do not pay attention to except once in a while (not to mention the countries.) I don't believe space travel is worth it if we get there through war, interpersonal alienation and violence required by the only current system poised to do it. Sometimes we have to entertain the idea of letting go of preventing every possible bad outcome and focus on what is needed in the current moment. Regrettably I'm not the most persuasive philosopher; Gil Scott-Heron has a song called "Whitey on the Moon" if one wants to think more poetically about it.
JetSpiegel 8y ago
> Maybe a drought of elevator specialists decreases the amount of elevators we can have. We have to walk up stairs more often. Not ideal. Not really, it would make the skyscraper impractical. No one is going to climb 100 floors through the stairs. Actually, this is not that bad...
- detcader 8y ago
  I find it interesting where we as makers put our optimism and our pessimism. We post about space exploration and gene editing. We say "just wait for what humankind can do with this! Soon no one will have to have any disease, and space will be ours for the colonizing before some terrible massive event happens. It's inevitable with our abilities!" But when the suggestion arises that we slow down and imagine working with who and what we have, and trying to solution around our human and spiritual problems we have in the present, the tone flips. That's impossible, you'll never get people to do that. The masses are by nature lazy and combative and we might as well ignore it. I think it comes from a competitive philosophy of life. Only some people are good enough to gift the world with their novelty and technology. Most people are fine in menial, alienating service jobs, they're just not good enough. This is inevitably how society works everywhere, and it has made people and life calm, fitter, healthier, more productive...

pixl97 8y ago

>What more do we really need in terms of technology, to survive as nations and be happy? What timeline are we talking about. > Could this point in our achievement be enough? To ensure eventual extinction, yes. Modern technology is wholly dependant on a great number of unstable and unsustainable systems. Fossil fuels are the best example of a great technological boost that is destroying our atmosphere. Renewables, while so much better, are not without their drawbacks at a world civilization size. Still, it could create a nice, clean, and happy doomed world. Below us vast volcanoes, things not seen for tens of thousands of years, wait to explode below us threatening to blot out the sun for a decade (hope you don't depend on solar panels). Above us rocks the size of mountains race through the blackness of space at insane speeds waiting to find a gravity well and vaporize what is at the bottom of it. There exists threats, ones we've only come to realize exist in the past century, that can wipe mankind off earth in the blink of an eye. The solution to most of these is making sure we just aren't on earth, and become a spacefaring civilization. For that we will need technology far beyond what we have now.

detcader 8y ago
It's almost as if we are in Omelas, our worldwide festival of novelty and technology relying on a hidden destruction of the environment we do not pay attention to except once in a while (not to mention the countries.) I don't believe space travel is worth it if we get there through war, interpersonal alienation and violence required by the only current system poised to do it. Sometimes we have to entertain the idea of letting go of preventing every possible bad outcome and focus on what is needed in the current moment. Regrettably I'm not the most persuasive philosopher; Gil Scott-Heron has a song called "Whitey on the Moon" if one wants to think more poetically about it.

JetSpiegel 8y ago

> Maybe a drought of elevator specialists decreases the amount of elevators we can have. We have to walk up stairs more often. Not ideal. Not really, it would make the skyscraper impractical. No one is going to climb 100 floors through the stairs. Actually, this is not that bad...

detcader 8y ago
I find it interesting where we as makers put our optimism and our pessimism. We post about space exploration and gene editing. We say "just wait for what humankind can do with this! Soon no one will have to have any disease, and space will be ours for the colonizing before some terrible massive event happens. It's inevitable with our abilities!" But when the suggestion arises that we slow down and imagine working with who and what we have, and trying to solution around our human and spiritual problems we have in the present, the tone flips. That's impossible, you'll never get people to do that. The masses are by nature lazy and combative and we might as well ignore it. I think it comes from a competitive philosophy of life. Only some people are good enough to gift the world with their novelty and technology. Most people are fine in menial, alienating service jobs, they're just not good enough. This is inevitably how society works everywhere, and it has made people and life calm, fitter, healthier, more productive...