5 ms·

Are there any historical examples of humanity just saying "no" to a new disruptive technology?

by traverseda 3y ago

rnmmrnm 3y ago
genetics? like cloning people and stuff.
- traverseda 3y ago
  I think now that China has the technology base they are working on it, but I'll grant you that there has been a significant delay.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Cloning and genetic manipulation aren't well understood enough to be used in practice on the ways most people expect. And on the ways they can be used in practice, they are in wide use. But we have indeed said "not this fast" to research.
- Symmetry 3y ago
  In all the years since Asilomar we've only got one known instance of someone doing human germline genetic modifications.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
CFC refrigerants, maybe?
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
By the anthropic principle, we probably wouldn't know about most of them. Hmmm.
kryptiskt 3y ago
Chemical weapons, DDT.
ilovetux 3y ago
The Ludites do not account for all of humanity, but they sure tried very hard to say "no" to a new disruptive technology. In the end, they were not successful. The Amish, on the other hand, have successfully staved off most new technology since the 1600s. They also do not account for all of humanity. It seems that saying no to a disruptive technology requires the naysayers to split off into a whole new society.
- pydry 3y ago
  For the luddites destroying technology was a tactic to deal with getting undercut by low wage/bottom of the barrel competitors, not a moral imperative. It didn't fail because the tactic didn't work economically, it failed because they were imprisoned and executed for destroying the sewing machines. In much the same way - when workers go on strike today, it's a tactic, not a protest against the concept of work. Sometimes it works, sometimes that gets you put in prison too. The luddites' modern equivalent would probably be the French anti-Uber protestors. They were, interestingly, actually described as being anti-smartphone by business journals. This is obviously false, but it's an interesting historical rhyme. I wonder if in 50 years time children will be taught about the "French iPhone protestors".
- sorokod 3y ago
  Pennsylvania Dutch and Russian Old Believers are more recent examples. Orthodox Jews generally stay away from the internet.
- atq2119 3y ago
  It's important to note that the luddites didn't necessarily say "no" to technology. What they objected to was how the gains of the technology were distributed. History really does rhyme.
  - smegma2 3y ago
    History has shown that only the top 1% have benefitted from the invention of the textile mill.
lm28469 3y ago
You'd need strong politicians for that, given how politics are governed by economics there is a huge conflict of interest for this to ever happen with AI
RandomLensman 3y ago
The question to ask is: why would you want to say "no" here? Other than a hypothetical intrinsic existential risk, socio-economic risks could be addressed by social technologies.
- patcon 3y ago
  Maybe the "no" is "no" to a specific accelerated pace. Social technology (assuming it involves human minds) likely has a hard cap on how fast it can move. So the "no" can be "not yet", and I believe it can materially affect outcomes. I think we very often say "not yet". It's one of the main things policy does, even if it disguises itself as "no, never"
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Arguably, it tends to lag, but not sure you can leap ahead much before changes are required/the changes to be addressed can be observed at least somewhat (other than just completely changing the social model, perhaps). Then social technologies can actually move quite fast.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > why would you want to say "no" here? We're in an age of rising fascism, authoritarianism and inequality. With regard to "AI", it's a technology that disproportionately favours established power and threatens democracy. If "AI" really was a leveller, if it threatened to split monopolies, reign in government, redistribute wealth and build social capital then I think you'd hear a good deal more enthusiasm for it. Right now even the dumbest people can see which way that wind is blowing.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    AI won't do any of that on its own, only people could do that. The bleak outlook is easy to take, but not sure that it will come true.
    - 3y ago
fimdomeio 3y ago
The nuclear apocalypse still did not happen.
Intralexical 3y ago
Concorde maybe? SLAM/Nike-X? Ford Nucleon, nuclear jets, NERVA? Local city LRT systems that are still human-driven despite automated trains being available? Moller, autogyros, and all the other flying cars and jetpacks that have come along before the current crop of electrically powered multirotor systems? Lysenkoism (rejected modern agriculture), maybe— Well, that one backfired. Citizen access to fully automatic rifles and missiles, at least in most countries? And lawn darts, in other countries? Cryptocurrencies and blockchains, outside of their little bubble? Social media in general, currently, in that there's signficant and growing pushback after seeing its consequences, even if it's still also widespread and entrenched. Other comments mentioned CFCs, cloning, chemical weapons, DDT. To that, let's add: Trans fats, Soylent, hydrogenated vegetable oils (butter's still going strong), bisphenol A in food and drink containers, veganism, rare earth metal extraction (and pollution, on US soil). Electric cars (at both the start and the end of the twentieth century!), zip fuel, most types of advanced fission reactor design and probably a couple non-nuclear renewable power plant types as well (up until recently). The question's kinda paradoxically framed. If everybody just outright rejected the technology from the start, then it didn't get the chance to be all that "disruptive", even if it could have been. That makes it hard to think of good specific examples, but technically feasible and socially disruptive technologies get dropped for lack of interest all the time. If we blindly developed and proliferated every technology, without regard for its consequences and for whether people even want it or if it helps people while keeping harm to a minimum… Obviously that strategy would entail a.. casualty list. In fact, maybe you could even say the default reponse to disruptive new technologies is "no". It took a lot of true believers and investors/wealth inequality to get ML to the point it's at now. And even then, it's most likely still heavily subsidized (I.E. operating at a loss, economically unviable so far), and the vast majority of "humanity" doesn't really understand, doesn't care about, or actively doesn't want it. The fact that a relatively tiny portion of society is able to force it onto everybody despite that is a property of currently existing power structures, not an intrinsic feature of humans or of all potentially socially disruptive technologies.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  I keep trying to find ever more succinct ways to put this. The best I got so far is: Progress is a vector. Look at all the people here shouting for Progress!! Progress!! Progress to where? We require direction as well as magnitude. We keep making lots of progress, against ourselves.

Are there any historical examples of humanity just saying "no" to a new disruptive technology?

rnmmrnm 3y ago

genetics? like cloning people and stuff.

traverseda 3y ago
I think now that China has the technology base they are working on it, but I'll grant you that there has been a significant delay.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Cloning and genetic manipulation aren't well understood enough to be used in practice on the ways most people expect. And on the ways they can be used in practice, they are in wide use. But we have indeed said "not this fast" to research.
Symmetry 3y ago
In all the years since Asilomar we've only got one known instance of someone doing human germline genetic modifications.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

CFC refrigerants, maybe?

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago

By the anthropic principle, we probably wouldn't know about most of them. Hmmm.

kryptiskt 3y ago

Chemical weapons, DDT.

ilovetux 3y ago

The Ludites do not account for all of humanity, but they sure tried very hard to say "no" to a new disruptive technology. In the end, they were not successful. The Amish, on the other hand, have successfully staved off most new technology since the 1600s. They also do not account for all of humanity. It seems that saying no to a disruptive technology requires the naysayers to split off into a whole new society.

pydry 3y ago
For the luddites destroying technology was a tactic to deal with getting undercut by low wage/bottom of the barrel competitors, not a moral imperative. It didn't fail because the tactic didn't work economically, it failed because they were imprisoned and executed for destroying the sewing machines. In much the same way - when workers go on strike today, it's a tactic, not a protest against the concept of work. Sometimes it works, sometimes that gets you put in prison too. The luddites' modern equivalent would probably be the French anti-Uber protestors. They were, interestingly, actually described as being anti-smartphone by business journals. This is obviously false, but it's an interesting historical rhyme. I wonder if in 50 years time children will be taught about the "French iPhone protestors".
sorokod 3y ago
Pennsylvania Dutch and Russian Old Believers are more recent examples. Orthodox Jews generally stay away from the internet.
atq2119 3y ago
It's important to note that the luddites didn't necessarily say "no" to technology. What they objected to was how the gains of the technology were distributed. History really does rhyme.
- smegma2 3y ago
  History has shown that only the top 1% have benefitted from the invention of the textile mill.

lm28469 3y ago

You'd need strong politicians for that, given how politics are governed by economics there is a huge conflict of interest for this to ever happen with AI

RandomLensman 3y ago

The question to ask is: why would you want to say "no" here? Other than a hypothetical intrinsic existential risk, socio-economic risks could be addressed by social technologies.

patcon 3y ago
Maybe the "no" is "no" to a specific accelerated pace. Social technology (assuming it involves human minds) likely has a hard cap on how fast it can move. So the "no" can be "not yet", and I believe it can materially affect outcomes. I think we very often say "not yet". It's one of the main things policy does, even if it disguises itself as "no, never"
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Arguably, it tends to lag, but not sure you can leap ahead much before changes are required/the changes to be addressed can be observed at least somewhat (other than just completely changing the social model, perhaps). Then social technologies can actually move quite fast.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> why would you want to say "no" here? We're in an age of rising fascism, authoritarianism and inequality. With regard to "AI", it's a technology that disproportionately favours established power and threatens democracy. If "AI" really was a leveller, if it threatened to split monopolies, reign in government, redistribute wealth and build social capital then I think you'd hear a good deal more enthusiasm for it. Right now even the dumbest people can see which way that wind is blowing.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  AI won't do any of that on its own, only people could do that. The bleak outlook is easy to take, but not sure that it will come true.
  - 3y ago

fimdomeio 3y ago

The nuclear apocalypse still did not happen.

Intralexical 3y ago

Concorde maybe? SLAM/Nike-X? Ford Nucleon, nuclear jets, NERVA? Local city LRT systems that are still human-driven despite automated trains being available? Moller, autogyros, and all the other flying cars and jetpacks that have come along before the current crop of electrically powered multirotor systems? Lysenkoism (rejected modern agriculture), maybe— Well, that one backfired. Citizen access to fully automatic rifles and missiles, at least in most countries? And lawn darts, in other countries? Cryptocurrencies and blockchains, outside of their little bubble? Social media in general, currently, in that there's signficant and growing pushback after seeing its consequences, even if it's still also widespread and entrenched. Other comments mentioned CFCs, cloning, chemical weapons, DDT. To that, let's add: Trans fats, Soylent, hydrogenated vegetable oils (butter's still going strong), bisphenol A in food and drink containers, veganism, rare earth metal extraction (and pollution, on US soil). Electric cars (at both the start and the end of the twentieth century!), zip fuel, most types of advanced fission reactor design and probably a couple non-nuclear renewable power plant types as well (up until recently). The question's kinda paradoxically framed. If everybody just outright rejected the technology from the start, then it didn't get the chance to be all that "disruptive", even if it could have been. That makes it hard to think of good specific examples, but technically feasible and socially disruptive technologies get dropped for lack of interest all the time. If we blindly developed and proliferated every technology, without regard for its consequences and for whether people even want it or if it helps people while keeping harm to a minimum… Obviously that strategy would entail a.. casualty list. In fact, maybe you could even say the default reponse to disruptive new technologies is "no". It took a lot of true believers and investors/wealth inequality to get ML to the point it's at now. And even then, it's most likely still heavily subsidized (I.E. operating at a loss, economically unviable so far), and the vast majority of "humanity" doesn't really understand, doesn't care about, or actively doesn't want it. The fact that a relatively tiny portion of society is able to force it onto everybody despite that is a property of currently existing power structures, not an intrinsic feature of humans or of all potentially socially disruptive technologies.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
I keep trying to find ever more succinct ways to put this. The best I got so far is: Progress is a vector. Look at all the people here shouting for Progress!! Progress!! Progress to where? We require direction as well as magnitude. We keep making lots of progress, against ourselves.