3 ms·
You’re lightly changing the topic here, I think. I brought up regulation as one type of situation where someone makes estimates about the future societal impact
by tech_ken 3y ago
You’re lightly changing the topic here, I think. I brought up regulation as one type of situation where someone makes estimates about the future societal impact about technology. Setting aside the big libertarian rant for a sec, I’d like to go back to original question. Be it an individual, researcher, lab, corporation, or regulatory agency: do you believe that when developing a new technology it is both possible and prudent to assess its future social impacts, and continue or discontinue development accordingly? Or do you believe that it is always the best idea to continue development regardless of estimated impacts?
- nickpp 3y ago> do you believe that it is always the best idea to continue development regardless of estimated impacts? Emphatically yes. The possible downsides are much smaller than the expected upside (as history shows) and we are really bad at predicting either in advance anyway (also as history shows). Finally, we really really really need those upsides to change our fate as a species currently one cosmic accident (meteorite, virus, nuclear escalation, etc) away from extinction. Also even if the good guys stop, the bad guys will certainly accelerate - so in a competitive world there is really no advantage in voluntarily giving up technological development.
- tech_ken 3y agoGot it, so when say a private individual or lab decides that the cost of continuing a line of research or development exceeds the predicted benefit/profit and cancels it, you think that's a missed opportunity regardless of the context? Every invention everywhere should be shipped and never rolled back, no matter if it is profitable (on any time horizon) because eventually there's a chance it could return social benefits?