> Most people are able to understand what is broadly meant by "technological development". I personally don't find someone saying "oh you know what was meant"

> Most people are able to understand what is broadly meant by "technological development". I personally don't find someone saying "oh you know what was meant" to be a convincing argument, others may feel differently. The post made a massively overreaching claim about the universal positivity of technological development. If they meant "consumer goods should be adopted as fast as possible" then say that instead, especially if you're trying to build a life-philosophy on it. My core point is that "technological development" is an enormous concept, entailing all sorts of things. To say "more technology means more access to technology" paints over all sorts of dynamics which run counter or orthogonal to that. I'm merely pointing out one such example, there are many more if you think about it for a minute. Feel free to stay focused on the forest, but don't be surprised if you wind up unable to differentiate between a deciduous and an evergreen. > You're letting the political mask slip a bit with the inclusion of the Whig comment, by the way :) There's no mask, I wear my political convictions quite openly :)