3 ms·
His arguments are, paraphrased: 1. It hurts nature. 2. It's too expensive and destroys existing jobs. 3. It's unlikely that it's better than the current tech
by jklm 4y ago
His arguments are, paraphrased:
1. It hurts nature.
2. It's too expensive and destroys existing jobs.
3. It's unlikely that it's better than the current tech.
And that he won't fall for the "propaganda campaign" that says otherwise.
---
What I find super fascinating here is that the arguments back then and now are...extremely similar.
Look at any cutting-edge tech - EVs, crypto, etc. - and you find the same arguments rehashed in different ways. E.g. EVs hurt nature because of battery disposal issues, crypto uses a ton of energy for a slower database.
Food for thought: are we really all that different from Wendell in 2022?
- mattwilsonn888 4y agoI believe, assuming it exists, the flaw in this style of thinking is the unwillingness to hop on or believe in something new, when its marginal utility is still questionable. Of course, for many reasons, being early on what will become better enough to be an established part of society has advantages.
- marcosdumay 4y agoIs there anybody claiming that cryptocoins destroy jobs? Because that is the one most desirable quality in tech, and you are mixing with undesirable platitudes like if they are the same.
- pessimizer 4y agoThose arguments are directed at all tech that is bad, not just your pet technologies. They encompass all possible flaws of a thing. 1. It has negative externalities. 2. It's too expensive. 3. It's not an improvement/doesn't work. The fascinating thing is that people see these criticisms and it counterintuitively bolsters their confidence that their tech is special, because things that turned out to be special were also criticized. 1) The number of crap things or even actively destructive things that have been criticized on these same not-so-narrow grounds are far more than the number of things that turned out to be good that got criticized. Why? Because there are far fewer good ideas than bad ones, and the bad ones get criticized more (at least on average.) 2) Not only are the listed three the only ways to criticize things, but everything is going to be criticized eventually. So, the mere presence of criticism can't be evidence of anything because everything gets criticized.
- jklm 4y agoWell...yes. I think we're mostly in agreement that these arguments are meaningless because they can always be created, for every thing. So the next time you hear an argument that falls into 1 of these 3 buckets, be skeptical both ways (for & against) because the mere presence of criticism can't be evidence of anything.
- zhte415 4y agoI propose we radically overhaul out diets by boosting the consumption of bees. 1. The consumption of bees has been suggested to be harmful to the pollination of plants. This is a fallacy. Not only will the consumption of bees increase the pollination of plants, but plants can be pollinated by hand. 2. The consumption of bees is not a threat to the existing honey industry. Skills in the production of honey can be applied in the harvesting of more bees. 3. Consumption of bees is superior to existing consumption of honey because bees contain a powerful combination of amino acids, the building blocks of life. Protein from bees relieves the traditionally polluting industries such as poultry and dairy. Honey is a natural preservative, ensuring the nutrition from bees is locked-in and can be stored for years, decades or longer. Bees can be produced on hillsides and other locations that traditionally have been resistant to intensive environmentally friendly farming. There is no threat to the maple syrup industry. I will not fall to the anti-change propaganda, and nor should you. Come found the kick-starter for my ICO, details on my profile page.
- q-big 4y ago> EVs hurt nature because of battery disposal issues The difference is that EVs are marketed to be environment friendly.