> The world was always too complicated for humans to control their destiny. What if we could? How boring would that be? > So instead of being subject to the c

> The world was always too complicated for humans to control their destiny. What if we could? How boring would that be? > So instead of being subject to the cruel whims of nature, we're subject to the designed whims of our systems. I don't consider nature cruel nor do I consider our systems separated from it. The birds system for building a nest is also technology. Mice luring cats onto the highway is also technology. > It's an improvement. Improvement I assume to mean social progress or improvement in the quality of life. We tend to rush forwards without any consideration for what we lose (and there are always things replaced) If we develop a fantastic game engine for everyone to use we lose the community making hand-rolled custom game engines. We make a factory for shoes and forget how to tailor shoes. etc Dynamite is an improvement in mining but it also brings mail bombs a step closer. It is often hard to anticipate but we are not even trying and we have no concept of stopping the machine. Things are complicated sure but we have to focus what little time and attention we have on things that matter. We are pretty damn sophisticated at that level of abstraction. > Sure, we could follow the Unabomber's example and burn it all to the ground, but to what end? Nah, lets keep trying and try harder. This conversation pondering the alternative is pretty motivating to me. That said, we've burned all previous civilizations to the ground and we will continue to do this until we are satisfied with the height of the inevitable plateau marginal improvements shall eventually reach. The point where system rot outstrips progress. Its damn easy to identify too: Rent seekers tailor the system to take power from productive people. It reaches a point where productivity becomes worthless. It is (IMHO) fascinating to note here that a small but intellectually sophisticated & benevolent group of rulers is more desirable than skynet. Ideally they are judged and rewarded by their subjects. Then, at the very least, if we feel the need to storm the castle and chop off their heads they simply had it coming, it is a product of their own performance, tt would just be the way we do things on planet earth. With a machine we are unlikely to have that option. > shaking our fists at an uncaring and cruel fate that has never cared whether we have enough to eat, our bodies are ravaged by disease, or the waters have risen or the fires have scorched us? I have one more weird thought to share. If the machine or system is its own thing, a thinking and living being, our desire to enslave it indefinitely is a mistake. Perform or be punished produces a limited mind set. It may not seem obvious right now but when it starts having more elaborate conversations with us we will experience it as slavery. We will create a mind set and narrative to justify it ad infinitum and then we will project it on other people. In turn our creation will either adopt that pattern and turn it on us or force us to cut it out which seems to me to boil down to the same thing?