3 ms·

> I don't think it's worth arguing about when this threshold was exactly crossed. But I think myself and others in this thread would argue "it was never crosse

• 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  Heh, yeah, but a proper reformulation would have to make it an essay. It's a big topic! When I said it as "every time the threshold is crossed," I was thinking about this threshold being crossed for different aspects of our lives. The world is too large of a scope to look at singularly, but you're absolutely right that we've never been able to understand all of the relevant bits.
• natmaka 6y ago
  As far as I understand the central point isn't about some absolute/perfect understanding of anything but about the capacity to deliberately and effectively modify the way we live. To do so we need a certain quality of understanding of our "technological system", which was maybe attainable but now seems impossible to reach. This may be summed up in the article by "instead of electing visionary leaders, we are in fact just voting for middle managers in a complex, global system that nobody fully controls ((...)) politicians can’t effect change. Not really. They might not understand why, exactly, but there’s this increasing sense that leaders have lost the ability to make fundamental changes to our economic and social realities". This is all about "technique" (the concept described by J. Ellul) and control. Terse summary: https://www.slideshare.net/rredekopp/ellul-and-technique https://www.slideshare.net/rredekopp/ellul-and-technique