3 ms·
I did not volunteer. As I would not accept it given the current risk level, or costs. But there are people who would. And as that risk is reduced, and the risk
by wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
I did not volunteer. As I would not accept it given the current risk level, or costs. But there are people who would. And as that risk is reduced, and the risk window pushed back, more and more people would, so the sum total of people dying after using a device over ten to fifty years would increase, but the result of the technologies widespread use would be rapid improvement in it that we would all mutually benefit from.
Consider cars kill easily a million people every year, and they are totally normal. Thats not some crazy experimental technology. People decided. Cars are/were worth millions of deaths.
If you are still not convinced, consider what I said but in the context of airplanes in the 1910s.
Nobody should be forced into it. I did not say they should. And they should be well aware of the risks. Short term and long term. Potential unknown risks as well. But poeple use technology and enjoy it, despite dying from it.
- bmer 3y agoThe trouble with your utopian thinking is that we do not have an education system that reliably equips people to make rational decisions, nor do we have information hygiene rules that help reduce noise so that people can make rational decisions. Last, but far from least, we do not give people the time to think and/or collect data. So, this is not to say that any of this tech should be banned or regulated. Regulation itself is at risk of being irrationally/dishonestly captured. It's just that there's no cause for celebration either. A lot of people are going to suffer, and ultimately even if the tech does mature, people will find far more ways to enshittify it for a quick buck. In other words, even if in the best case scenario we might have new gadgets etc. the world won't really change. The shape of our conflicts (information vs. misinformation) will remain roughly the same, and the balance of our power in those conflicts will remain roughly the same. As a consequence: the probability that you (or yours) will get to benefit, rather than merely be the temporarily-disgraced winners will remain roughly the same: quite low.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y agoI do not have any utopian thinking. I just said "wow paper is such a great invention. if i had paper i could send messages really far away and write down my thoughts and draw and write. Everyone could benefit in so many ways if paper was ubiquitous. Its probably worth a lot of effort and sacrifice." And youre the one going on about politics, regulation, and utopia. Its just not relevant.
- aperrien 3y agoThis is a terribly cynical take on the world. Why strive for any progress at all, then?