3 ms·

I would argue with your "massive benefit", unqualified. Because while it is true that basic research HAS improved life, much of modern research and technical pr

I would argue with your "massive benefit", unqualified. Because while it is true that basic research HAS improved life, much of modern research and technical production has decreased it: less sense of community, microplastics, climate change, destabilization of the working force (AI), less sense of purpose. What's the use of an even longer life if our entire way of life is just a production to add incremental levels of safety, which hardly helps most anyway? While you might be right, it is VERY far from clear that the latest advanced research will really help us. It could also lead to our annihilation or at least dehumanization, which is really not much better than annihilation. In fact, due to the immense damage technology has caused, the burden of proof should be on the technologists to reliably demonstrate that new technology is even worth it beyond propping up our broken, global capitalistic system.

_yb2s 2y ago
I’m not talking about technology, I’m talking about having an understanding of how reality works. I fully agree with you that one should have a sense of ethics and use the precautionary principle when deciding what to do with that knowledge. With deeper knowledge we can develop more humane and environmentally safe technology, and cure diseases that cause massive suffering… We’re past the point of just going back to preindustrial tech with less negative impacts- but with a deeper understanding of reality we could, e.g. pull carbon straight out of the atmosphere to manufacture almost anything in a renewable way, while also understanding biochemistry enough to make things that won’t be toxic or persist in the environment, and are readily broken down and reused.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > With deeper knowledge we can develop more humane and environmentally safe technology, and cure diseases that cause massive suffering… This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't believe (and I've never seen any convincing evidence) that we could EVER develop more human and environmentally safe technology. Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction, and because there are 8 billion people in the world and there will always be the unscrupulous who will use that technology for destruction. And even ignoring the unscrupulous, the existing habitat destruction from said technology use already (in my valuation) is too great to balance out some of the so-called positive uses of technology.
  - rowanG077 2y ago
    You think people in the hunter gatherer days lived a better more humane life? You walked too close to a branch and got a small cut and a few weeks later you are dead. Oh no, You fell and can't get up while a predator is chasing your group, better prepare to be eaten alive. You accidentally ate that one fruit that looks similar to another one, oops you die shitting your bowels out. What's that? You are getting your third child, too bad the other two died in child birth together with their mother. I really don't think you realize how cushy modern life is compared to even the hardships of a few hundreds years ago.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    > Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction There is no fundamental reason to require such things. As Fuller said, the goal of technology is to “do more and more with less and less until you can do everything with nothing.” In my view it’s not the idea of technology that has been the problem, but that it was done by people with no understanding of the impacts, or sense of responsibility. The reason our current tech is so nasty and damaging is because our knowledge has been too primitive to do better thus far, and now people are not willing to give it up. Synthetic biology, for example can now pull carbon straight from the air and make it into nontoxic biodegradable building materials- or really almost anything. This can eventually replace all mining and toxic chemical factories, with basically just old fashioned fermentation in a vat, that neither produces or uses anything toxic- but can replace all of the nasty stuff we currently make from mining and petroleum. A deeper understanding of biology will allow us to further reduce risks and environmental impacts by really deeply understanding which molecules we can make safely without toxic impacts on humans or other species, and without environmental persistence.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      So far, there is zero evidence that technology can really do that. Any efficiency is countered with absolute growth. Plastic production has not decreased, and CO2 levels are rising as always. It all comes down to probabilities, but when people find a more efficient way to use something, they use more of it. Is there a nonzero probability that your closed economoy, zero-mining future is possible? I think so, but I think it's small. And even a 10% chance that your future will NOT come to pass is enough reason to limit technology and go for degrowth instead, which seems far more logical. No doubt that our differences will ultimately come to valuations and what we consider important, not probabilities. There will be no reconciliation there. Of course, what I am saying is probably entirely moot, because economy and science as it is today favors your position, and not mine. But I am willing to fight for my position regardless.
lutusp 2y ago
> In fact, due to the immense damage technology has caused, the burden of proof should be on the technologists to reliably demonstrate that new technology is even worth it beyond propping up our broken, global capitalistic system. A fair argument as far as it goes, but unlike engineering and some other activities, mathematics isn't about creating more technology. Although mathematics can be applied to that purpose, that's not its essence. If electronics and computers didn't exist, if industrial society didn't exist, mathematics would still exist, and perhaps it wouldn't be confused so often with its applications. Mathematics isn't responsible for how we choose to apply it.

_yb2s 2y ago

I’m not talking about technology, I’m talking about having an understanding of how reality works. I fully agree with you that one should have a sense of ethics and use the precautionary principle when deciding what to do with that knowledge. With deeper knowledge we can develop more humane and environmentally safe technology, and cure diseases that cause massive suffering… We’re past the point of just going back to preindustrial tech with less negative impacts- but with a deeper understanding of reality we could, e.g. pull carbon straight out of the atmosphere to manufacture almost anything in a renewable way, while also understanding biochemistry enough to make things that won’t be toxic or persist in the environment, and are readily broken down and reused.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> With deeper knowledge we can develop more humane and environmentally safe technology, and cure diseases that cause massive suffering… This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't believe (and I've never seen any convincing evidence) that we could EVER develop more human and environmentally safe technology. Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction, and because there are 8 billion people in the world and there will always be the unscrupulous who will use that technology for destruction. And even ignoring the unscrupulous, the existing habitat destruction from said technology use already (in my valuation) is too great to balance out some of the so-called positive uses of technology.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  You think people in the hunter gatherer days lived a better more humane life? You walked too close to a branch and got a small cut and a few weeks later you are dead. Oh no, You fell and can't get up while a predator is chasing your group, better prepare to be eaten alive. You accidentally ate that one fruit that looks similar to another one, oops you die shitting your bowels out. What's that? You are getting your third child, too bad the other two died in child birth together with their mother. I really don't think you realize how cushy modern life is compared to even the hardships of a few hundreds years ago.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  > Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction There is no fundamental reason to require such things. As Fuller said, the goal of technology is to “do more and more with less and less until you can do everything with nothing.” In my view it’s not the idea of technology that has been the problem, but that it was done by people with no understanding of the impacts, or sense of responsibility. The reason our current tech is so nasty and damaging is because our knowledge has been too primitive to do better thus far, and now people are not willing to give it up. Synthetic biology, for example can now pull carbon straight from the air and make it into nontoxic biodegradable building materials- or really almost anything. This can eventually replace all mining and toxic chemical factories, with basically just old fashioned fermentation in a vat, that neither produces or uses anything toxic- but can replace all of the nasty stuff we currently make from mining and petroleum. A deeper understanding of biology will allow us to further reduce risks and environmental impacts by really deeply understanding which molecules we can make safely without toxic impacts on humans or other species, and without environmental persistence.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    So far, there is zero evidence that technology can really do that. Any efficiency is countered with absolute growth. Plastic production has not decreased, and CO2 levels are rising as always. It all comes down to probabilities, but when people find a more efficient way to use something, they use more of it. Is there a nonzero probability that your closed economoy, zero-mining future is possible? I think so, but I think it's small. And even a 10% chance that your future will NOT come to pass is enough reason to limit technology and go for degrowth instead, which seems far more logical. No doubt that our differences will ultimately come to valuations and what we consider important, not probabilities. There will be no reconciliation there. Of course, what I am saying is probably entirely moot, because economy and science as it is today favors your position, and not mine. But I am willing to fight for my position regardless.

lutusp 2y ago

> In fact, due to the immense damage technology has caused, the burden of proof should be on the technologists to reliably demonstrate that new technology is even worth it beyond propping up our broken, global capitalistic system. A fair argument as far as it goes, but unlike engineering and some other activities, mathematics isn't about creating more technology. Although mathematics can be applied to that purpose, that's not its essence. If electronics and computers didn't exist, if industrial society didn't exist, mathematics would still exist, and perhaps it wouldn't be confused so often with its applications. Mathematics isn't responsible for how we choose to apply it.