3 ms·
Technology isn't inherently good or evil, it's neutral. If Company A / Country A / Person A won't do it, then Company B / Country B / Person B will do it and u
by baal80spam 4y ago
Technology isn't inherently good or evil, it's neutral.
If Company A / Country A / Person A won't do it, then Company B / Country B / Person B will do it and use it to bankrupt you / attack and possibly kill you / take advantage of you.
It's that simple.
- Havoc 4y ago>Technology isn't inherently good or evil, it's neutral. Broadly yes, but this severe simplification glosses over the some technologies having more potential for abuse than others. A machine gun has more potential for evil than a dessert spoon.
- gizmo 4y agoNo, technology falls into different categories. Aspirin is unambiguously a technological good. As is the bicycle. There are many technological advances which are exclusively (or almost exclusively) used for the benefit of mankind. Then there is morally neutral technology. Think of a hammer or a knife. Can be used just as easily for good as for evil. It's up to the person who wields it. The third category is evil technology. Technology that just makes the world a worse place. Think of landmines, nerve gas, or biologically engineered viruses. If we could uninvent things, these are the things we would uninvent in a heart beat.
- davidivadavid 4y agoSo technology is good for the Company / Country / Person who builds it first and evil for the one who doesn't. Something being good for some people and evil for others doesn't make it "neutral."