3 ms·

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

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.

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.