3 ms·
"Q: Is it worth the risk? A: I would say overall we benefit more than we're harmed. Read Thomas Hobbes about what human life was like a few centuries ago. It w
by mvanveen 16y ago
"Q: Is it worth the risk?
A: I would say overall we benefit more than we're harmed. Read Thomas Hobbes about what human life was like a few centuries ago. It was short, brutish, disaster-prone, disease-filled. We've come a long way."
How can he say this when ~14% of the world population is still undernourished? For many, life is still nasty, brutish, and short. The exponential growth function of technological progress he defines already has severe problems with universal adoption. I think this is definitely one of the "dangers" of the singularity (do we really want to be living in Neuromancer?). I think it was Gibson who claimed "The future is here, it just isn't evenly distributed yet."
- Travis 16y agoDo you really not believe that humanity is overall better off due to technological progress? Or were you just looking for an argument? While I agree with your Gibson comment, your outrage isn't really justified. It's not like he made a bold claim -- he just said that humans are, in general, better off.
- mvanveen 16y agohe just said that humans are, in general, better off. He claimed that life is no longer nasty, brutish, or short. This is simply not true for a large group of the population. While I happen to think that humanity is overall better off due to technological progress (shocker), this fact isn't really relevant to my point. I simply think it's irresponsible to consider sweeping benefits technological progress when it's only allotted to a select few, and being aware of that danger is our responsibility as technologists.