@paul > Because technology can take physical form like robots and cars? Not so much that, no. Quite the opposite, because it's non-physical. Physical technolo

@paul > Because technology can take physical form like robots and cars? Not so much that, no. Quite the opposite, because it's non-physical. Physical technology has already taken on worrying forms, like atomic weapons and gasoline automobiles. We've managed those admirably I think [1] - even though it may seem otherwise at times. Physical has inbuilt limitations. Consider Google Glass and the near unanimous societal rejection of "glassholes". I am just recycling Mumford, Ellul and Postman here, but digital technology is different as it can produce near instantaneous change on global culture. > IMO religion has done so much damage in the form of wars, torture, and (mass and individual) mental illness that I imagine modern technology has a long way to go before it t can be considered as worrisome as religion and its memes. You're right, religion has and still does yield these consequences. BTW I am not rejecting _all_ of religion, it has many good sides too. But religion took thousands of years for its damaging effects to happen. Much of what we blame 'religion' for is really a parochial perspective on history (the view from now) and the playing out of human evolutionary affairs through it. The same will be true of technology . What we must be mindful of is that they are (1) essentially the same phenomenon, and (2) that digital technology will produce effects much, much faster than religion. It;s really only been 50 years, which is nothing in historical terms. [1] That might seem like a disingenuous thing to say within a context that feels so cynical, and we don't get to run control groups on history, but I like to think that we're on course to correct for climate change and that the game-theoretical MAD aspect to nukes has proven somewhat correct so far and we will reach a future time of disarmament. In that sense I have faith in science and people.