4 ms·

> man's inability yep. the wise mathematician saw that it's impossible > are not "progress forward" nuclear warheads gave us nuclear power and brought a long

> man's inability yep. the wise mathematician saw that it's impossible > are not "progress forward" nuclear warheads gave us nuclear power and brought a long peace in the world. They were very beneficial. Nuclear war and biowarfare are terrible, but the deterrence stalemate it creates is beneficial to the species. It's arguably the most stable recipe for peace so far > mere technological innovation with societal advancement "Societal advancement" is a totally relative term. Advancement towards what? Individual Freedom? Collectivism? OOps ... politics Technology is monotonically advancing towards more advanced (complex) effective tools, always. The two are not related

coldtea 7y ago
>nuclear warheads gave us nuclear power and brought a long peace in the world. They were very beneficial. And tomorrow they could wipe out the whole planet (besides the 250,000 people they've already wiped out). What would the verdict be at that case? Probably there wont be one, as there would be noone to make it (or noone who cares to make it). >"Societal advancement" is a totally relative term. My sentiments exactly. So one can't throw it willy nilly when they merely mean technological advancement. Nazi Germany was more technologically advanced than the Weimar republic that preceded it, for example, but few would consider it a "more advanced" society towards more social harmony in general... >Advancement towards what? Individual Freedom? Collectivism? OOps ... politics* Yeah, so? You can have technological progress without getting into politics on whether it's progress, but you can't have "progress" in abstract without defining towards what. "Freer markets" for example, or "more democracy" is already talking politics... >Technology is monotonically advancing towards more advanced (complex) effective tools, always. That's also false. Civilizations have lost technology and regressed backwards at a few points (the "dark ages" after the Roman empire was one of them). And, magical thinking and wishing aside, there's no guarantee from the universe that it can't happen again, even in a much more severe state. Either caused by man (e.g. after a nuclear war or similar) or by forces of nature (e.g. a meteor or similar).

coldtea 7y ago

>nuclear warheads gave us nuclear power and brought a long peace in the world. They were very beneficial. And tomorrow they could wipe out the whole planet (besides the 250,000 people they've already wiped out). What would the verdict be at that case? Probably there wont be one, as there would be noone to make it (or noone who cares to make it). >"Societal advancement" is a totally relative term. My sentiments exactly. So one can't throw it willy nilly when they merely mean technological advancement. Nazi Germany was more technologically advanced than the Weimar republic that preceded it, for example, but few would consider it a "more advanced" society towards more social harmony in general... >Advancement towards what? Individual Freedom? Collectivism? OOps ... politics* Yeah, so? You can have technological progress without getting into politics on whether it's progress, but you can't have "progress" in abstract without defining towards what. "Freer markets" for example, or "more democracy" is already talking politics... >Technology is monotonically advancing towards more advanced (complex) effective tools, always. That's also false. Civilizations have lost technology and regressed backwards at a few points (the "dark ages" after the Roman empire was one of them). And, magical thinking and wishing aside, there's no guarantee from the universe that it can't happen again, even in a much more severe state. Either caused by man (e.g. after a nuclear war or similar) or by forces of nature (e.g. a meteor or similar).