3 ms·
> How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? It's a matter of perspective. If one sees one's own growth as an axiomatic good, then of course equili
by danaris 4y ago
> How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation?
It's a matter of perspective.
If one sees one's own growth as an axiomatic good, then of course equilibrium will look like stagnation and the first step to death.
If, instead, one sees oneself as one part of a greater whole, all of which deserves consideration and has a place, equilibrium starts to look like a natural goal and a place of respect for everyone.
And your argument that we would throw away new technologies because they disrupt an equilibrium is a strawman; no one is suggesting that. "Technological progress" and "unconstrained growth" are not synonymous.
Let me turn this around on you and ask you this:
What is the ultimate goal of your unending growth?
- corbulo 4y agoTechnological progress historically has functioned as a very high multiplier for growth. From the industrial revolution to communication technologies. Controlling all growth in order to live in peace is an idea that is 100+ years old. Mackinder(widely regarded as the founder of geopolitics, was the director of LSE) wrote about it. It was his vision to foster the league of nations. By the end of his work describing such he goes down to limiting the freedom of individuals quite significantly. He was the seed for groups like the World Economic Forum and the current international bodies such as the WTO, WHO, UN, etc. I'm not sure you realize the measures that would have to be taken down to the individual level to control all growth. Life would be unrecognizable compared to what it is today. Oh, and no one would be allowed to exist outside the system. It would only be possible in a highly authoritarian world government. Answer to your question: Colonizing the galaxy and eternal progression of welfare for humanity.