4 ms·
> they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life Should I have the right to preserve my way of life when it imposes costs on others?
by czl 3y ago
> they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life
Should I have the right to preserve my way of life when it imposes costs on others?
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoShould you have the right to press for changes that impose a cost on others?
- winwang 3y agoSure, then I won't "press". I'll just release a product and see if the market wants it.
- throwanem 3y agoSo it's okay to perform the harmful act, knowing the harm it will cause, as long as you leave yourself the out of being able to say it'd have come to nothing had others declined to participate? I once heard a heroin dealer make a similar claim.
- kaashif 3y agoSo you're now comparing AI use to heroin use? Not the most accurate comparison if you ask me.
- throwanem 3y agoNo, of course not; that would be foolish. I'm pointing out that this argument goes equally well to justify either practice, and a lot more ill besides. That makes it a weak argument, and it makes someone who uses it look likewise, because who'd go for this if they had anything better?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cm2012 3y agoHalting technological process is way way more costly for humanity than the alternative.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoThis is an assertion made, necessarily, without evidence. It's also value laden in terms of what is considered "costly", and who should make the judgement.
- andsoitis 3y agoMaybe if we look at the opposite assertion, that technological regress would improve humanity, we can arbitrate which is likely more directionally correct. There’s also a third assertion which can help our thinking, and that is that we have just about the right amount and type of technology, so we should halt now (vs regress or progress). So the question then is: which of these three assertions are likely correct?
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoThe fact that moving from A to B is a net negative does not imply that moving "back" from B to A is a net positive. All 3 scenarios (net positive, net negative, neutral) are entirely possible. "The right amount of type of technology" is again a value judgement, tied into ideas about what a good life involves. It is also complicated by long term side effects, as we are seeing with the use of fossil fuels - there was a fairly good argument for their use 120 years ago, but it turns out that whether that argument was or wasn't correct, planning to continue to use them "forever" is not only infeasible, but utterly detrimental.
- andsoitis 3y agoOK. To make it concrete: do you think that if we reduced our technology and never increase it again, humanity would be in a better position than if we continued on the technology train?
- HDThoreaun 3y agoYou certainly have the right to try.
- zlg_codes 3y agoHow were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life? Also, costs? We're caring about money in a discussion about technology and culture? By that measure, the only cultures we should have around are the ones that cost the least.
- czl 3y ago> How were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life? Me and my pals have some skill that you can now buy a machine and replace so me my pals put on masks and come visit you to smash those machines. Me and my pals want to keep getting paid for the work the machine can do nearly free now. Are me and my pals not imposing costs on others? > We're caring about money in a discussion about technology and culture? By that measure, the only cultures we should have around are the ones that cost the least. What would you say to slave owners struggling to preserve their culture and way of life when slavery was being outlawed? Would you support them? Because to preserve their culture and way of life which imposes costs on others is ok?
- zlg_codes 3y agoThe Luddites were free people who knew a trade that machines were threatening to make obsolete. The slavery situation is nowhere near comparable. Slave owners didn't care one iota about their livestock, they were a means to an end. Did the Luddites capture or enslave anyone? I think this comparison was made solely to raise the temperature of the conversation. Vandalism or destruction of property is nowhere near as insidious as the erasure of an entire culture and squeezing money out of them for literally generations. I'm not convinced you have a clear view of who the Luddites were. We should look back at that situation as a hint as to how we should move forward with technology in society, if we make that choice. Choosing to leave certain people behind and not offer retraining or some other opportunity is exactly what creates the malice that would motivate a tradesman to destroy machinery. People know when they're being screwed or left out. So, maybe we shouldn't screw people over whose skills become obsolete by technologies. We should be forward-thinking and responsible in the effects our innovations have on our social systems. Or we can blame individuals and call them names. Good enough I guess?
- watwut 3y agoPreserving way of life here means "not starving and my kids have stuff to eat"