5 ms·

All it takes is for one group to start. Then the rest would either have to follow or be overtaken.

by Max_aaa 7y ago

zapita 7y ago
Actually all it takes is for one group to make the assumption you just made.
- reallydude 7y ago
  Takes less than that. My baby can be better (healthier, safer, smarter, whatever) is sufficient.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Dirlewanger 7y ago
  It's already started. The China of the last 20 years has repeatedly demonstrated they don't give a shit about the morality/future ramifications of any of their actions regarding science's unexplored territories.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    > morality/future ramifications of any of their actions regarding science's unexplored territories Have you considered the possibility that it's a good thing that China's isn't letting subjective feeling about morality stand in the way of progress? It's easy to get stuck in a rut where we fear new technology, pre-emptively declare it unethical, and never experience the benefits. IMHO, the west has gone way too far over the past few decades in the direction of risk aversion and the "precautionary principle", and China's boldness is a much-needed corrective.
    - devoply 7y ago
      Have you considered that such a rut could at one point even now be progress. Where we are happy with the level of tech we have and for 1,000 or 10,000 years things stabilize on this planet?
      - quotemstr 7y ago
        blink Are you really trying to define stagnation as progress? Is war peace too?
        devoply 7y ago
        If technology is war, then "stagnation" is peace. And technology, at least the way that Capitalist society does technology, is war more or less on the status quo. You could do technology other ways where this would not be the case, but then that would force you to think differently then the way you are thinking now where war is good. I am not arguing here that Capitalism does not work, it works very well... I am not arguing banning technology either. All that I am arguing is that there are other paradigms outside of those where technology is progress and progress is good. This paradigm is a very convincing paradigm because of how well it works in Capitalist society and how it generates wealth and helps accumulate power.
        quotemstr 7y ago
        You appear to be arguing from within an esoteric anti-capitalism framework that's redefined a number of common words as terms of art within that framework. You're not going to have a lot of luck convincing people to ban technology by using this framework and those terms.
    - vore 7y ago
      Progress for progress's sake is meaningless. If you're going to forsake any notions of morality in the name of progress, then you're losing sight of what the goal of the progress is: using technology to better people's lives. Even if you're going to argue that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term detriments: surprise, you're still applying morality.
  - Max_aaa 7y ago
    Who defines "morality"? What about the future ramification of stagnation? Or ignoring progress? Most of the world seems to be ignoring climate change, and somehow hoping for it to go away. Some claim to care, but those are just hollow words for the most part, as the world is hooked on cheap (dirty) energy.
ZhuanXia 7y ago
Exactly, it is overdetermined. In the west we have Lysenkoists on the left (who refuse to acknowledge that intelligence is even heritable) and on the right we have people who believe embryos have souls. Asia has none of these problems, and will thus force us to get over our scruples.

All it takes is for one group to start. Then the rest would either have to follow or be overtaken.

zapita 7y ago

Actually all it takes is for one group to make the assumption you just made.

reallydude 7y ago
Takes less than that. My baby can be better (healthier, safer, smarter, whatever) is sufficient.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Dirlewanger 7y ago
It's already started. The China of the last 20 years has repeatedly demonstrated they don't give a shit about the morality/future ramifications of any of their actions regarding science's unexplored territories.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  > morality/future ramifications of any of their actions regarding science's unexplored territories Have you considered the possibility that it's a good thing that China's isn't letting subjective feeling about morality stand in the way of progress? It's easy to get stuck in a rut where we fear new technology, pre-emptively declare it unethical, and never experience the benefits. IMHO, the west has gone way too far over the past few decades in the direction of risk aversion and the "precautionary principle", and China's boldness is a much-needed corrective.
  - devoply 7y ago
    Have you considered that such a rut could at one point even now be progress. Where we are happy with the level of tech we have and for 1,000 or 10,000 years things stabilize on this planet?
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      blink Are you really trying to define stagnation as progress? Is war peace too?
      - devoply 7y ago
        If technology is war, then "stagnation" is peace. And technology, at least the way that Capitalist society does technology, is war more or less on the status quo. You could do technology other ways where this would not be the case, but then that would force you to think differently then the way you are thinking now where war is good. I am not arguing here that Capitalism does not work, it works very well... I am not arguing banning technology either. All that I am arguing is that there are other paradigms outside of those where technology is progress and progress is good. This paradigm is a very convincing paradigm because of how well it works in Capitalist society and how it generates wealth and helps accumulate power.
        quotemstr 7y ago
        You appear to be arguing from within an esoteric anti-capitalism framework that's redefined a number of common words as terms of art within that framework. You're not going to have a lot of luck convincing people to ban technology by using this framework and those terms.
  - vore 7y ago
    Progress for progress's sake is meaningless. If you're going to forsake any notions of morality in the name of progress, then you're losing sight of what the goal of the progress is: using technology to better people's lives. Even if you're going to argue that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term detriments: surprise, you're still applying morality.
- Max_aaa 7y ago
  Who defines "morality"? What about the future ramification of stagnation? Or ignoring progress? Most of the world seems to be ignoring climate change, and somehow hoping for it to go away. Some claim to care, but those are just hollow words for the most part, as the world is hooked on cheap (dirty) energy.

ZhuanXia 7y ago

Exactly, it is overdetermined. In the west we have Lysenkoists on the left (who refuse to acknowledge that intelligence is even heritable) and on the right we have people who believe embryos have souls. Asia has none of these problems, and will thus force us to get over our scruples.