5 ms·

This sort of reasoning is the basis for my belief that the way we conduct our society is fundamentally flawed. It is trivial to introduce new technology, and it

This sort of reasoning is the basis for my belief that the way we conduct our society is fundamentally flawed. It is trivial to introduce new technology, and it's very difficult to remove it. This is evident with things like cigarettes or pesticides or oil. This leads me to believe that at any time we're only one piece of technology from catastrophe and even if we realize the mistake it will take decades for us to stop using the technology that has led to catastrophe. Combine this with the fact that the amount of technology that we create and introduce is only increasing perhaps exponentially. We are in very dangerous territory but we don't realize it... and even if we realize it we can't do anything about it in the time frames needed to deal with it. A society designed for longevity does not behave this way. Instead it follows an approach of punctuated equilibrium where it accumulates technology and robustly tests it in small pilot projects that are highly monitored and contained. Then after maybe a 1000 or 10,000 years when technology has matured it introduced a set of well tested technology into the system whose effects are very well understood. In this way a society designed for longevity goes through epochs and evolution... rather than extinction in short order. It's also much easier living in such a society because change is very gradual so having to retrain or learn new things in a lifetime is not necessary.

rumcajz 8y ago
"Amish Community Not Anti-Technology, Just More Thoughtful" https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287028/amish-community-not-anti-technology-just-more-thoughful https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/21...
XorNot 8y ago
I live less then 100 years. I have no interest in an appointed elite debating for 40 years whether the smartphone will be a problem before deigning to allow it's adoption.
- devoply 8y ago
  It's a question for science the implications of technology to be tested under controlled conditions -- i.e. small cities and like. It's not a political issue to be decided through arguments and debate. And yes you will be dead and most humans are vain enough that they couldn't care less if they destroy the planet as long as they get all the benefits immediately even if there is nothing left after that for future generations. The point is also not to argue the adoption of a single piece of technology... but to allow the adoption of an epoch of technology all at once whose interaction you can predict... because proper science and due diligence has been done on it. And also to create a real culture that you are born into and will die with... rather than the disposable culture of everything... i.e. the tech that you are born with is the tech you will die with.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    The desire to "slow down" is a meaningless platitude tossed out by those who don't do the science but have decided they're scared of it. The fact you're expressing it here is a more an attempt to step-around the reality that the US refuses to confront it's fear of having a strong government. The original Deus Ex game actually had a very good line regarding this - "the West, so afraid of strong government, now has no government - only financial power." In a bid to avoid having to deal with the problems of corporations and wealth, people like you would try and reach into research laboratories and tell people to stop working on things which would genuinely improve the planet. Your problem is not the adoption of technology, it's a cultural refusal to limit the power of money in the belief that soon you'll have some and don't want to be limited.
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      > The fact you're expressing it here is a more an attempt to step-around the reality that the US refuses to confront it's fear of having a strong government. This presumes that strong governments don't deserve a critical eye. It's not hard to find contemporary examples worldwide and historical examples in any country.
      - XorNot 8y ago
        This is a very US response. "Strong" is equated with "violent". Not capable or effective. But the US government is violent today. Yet incredibly weak at protecting it's citizens welfare or rejecting external manipulation against them.
        humanrebar 8y ago
        A government doesn't have to be violent to be abusive or corrupt. And the US government is formed by its citizens. It's presumptuous, and I'd argue dangerous, that a government should be in a paternal position. In particular, if a democracy is in charge of purifying the media its citizens consume, who holds the the government censors and gatekeepers accountable if (when) they become corrupt? It's not a coincidence that Venezuelan leadership cracked down on courts and independent media as it slid into the current mess. Further, "protecting its citizens" is often narrowed to "protecting the true citizens", enforcing bigotry with a patina of honorable intentions. See the Jim Crow American South, the Spanish Inquisition, and the murder of Christians in 17th century Japan.

rumcajz 8y ago

"Amish Community Not Anti-Technology, Just More Thoughtful" https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287028/amish-community-not-anti-technology-just-more-thoughful https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/21...

XorNot 8y ago

I live less then 100 years. I have no interest in an appointed elite debating for 40 years whether the smartphone will be a problem before deigning to allow it's adoption.

devoply 8y ago
It's a question for science the implications of technology to be tested under controlled conditions -- i.e. small cities and like. It's not a political issue to be decided through arguments and debate. And yes you will be dead and most humans are vain enough that they couldn't care less if they destroy the planet as long as they get all the benefits immediately even if there is nothing left after that for future generations. The point is also not to argue the adoption of a single piece of technology... but to allow the adoption of an epoch of technology all at once whose interaction you can predict... because proper science and due diligence has been done on it. And also to create a real culture that you are born into and will die with... rather than the disposable culture of everything... i.e. the tech that you are born with is the tech you will die with.
- XorNot 8y ago
  The desire to "slow down" is a meaningless platitude tossed out by those who don't do the science but have decided they're scared of it. The fact you're expressing it here is a more an attempt to step-around the reality that the US refuses to confront it's fear of having a strong government. The original Deus Ex game actually had a very good line regarding this - "the West, so afraid of strong government, now has no government - only financial power." In a bid to avoid having to deal with the problems of corporations and wealth, people like you would try and reach into research laboratories and tell people to stop working on things which would genuinely improve the planet. Your problem is not the adoption of technology, it's a cultural refusal to limit the power of money in the belief that soon you'll have some and don't want to be limited.
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    > The fact you're expressing it here is a more an attempt to step-around the reality that the US refuses to confront it's fear of having a strong government. This presumes that strong governments don't deserve a critical eye. It's not hard to find contemporary examples worldwide and historical examples in any country.
    - XorNot 8y ago
      This is a very US response. "Strong" is equated with "violent". Not capable or effective. But the US government is violent today. Yet incredibly weak at protecting it's citizens welfare or rejecting external manipulation against them.
      - humanrebar 8y ago
        A government doesn't have to be violent to be abusive or corrupt. And the US government is formed by its citizens. It's presumptuous, and I'd argue dangerous, that a government should be in a paternal position. In particular, if a democracy is in charge of purifying the media its citizens consume, who holds the the government censors and gatekeepers accountable if (when) they become corrupt? It's not a coincidence that Venezuelan leadership cracked down on courts and independent media as it slid into the current mess. Further, "protecting its citizens" is often narrowed to "protecting the true citizens", enforcing bigotry with a patina of honorable intentions. See the Jim Crow American South, the Spanish Inquisition, and the murder of Christians in 17th century Japan.