4 ms·

Why? Would you rather be the world’s richest person in 1825 or lower middle class today? I like antibiotics, MRI, anesthetics during surgeries, unlimited info

Why? Would you rather be the world’s richest person in 1825 or lower middle class today? I like antibiotics, MRI, anesthetics during surgeries, unlimited information and entertainment, and the ability to travel places in less than 8 weeks and without getting tuberculosis along the way. Tech advancement has given the most people the most happiness, safety and prosperity. And it’s still barely a drop in the bucket compared to what is plainly visible already as the next level up.

amelius 1y ago
You are presenting a false dichotomy. Better testing procedures will not put us back in 1825.
- unsupp0rted 1y ago
  We didn't have better testing procedures and we got here. With better testing procedures, would we have gotten here sooner, in the same amount of time, or slower? My contention is slower. And this seems obvious, because in any Cold War sabotage handbook for slowing down a project, the first rule is to insist on more documentation, more consensus, more verification and validation: i.e. more "testing" and less "push to prod".
  - maxerickson 1y ago
    Of course we tested our way here. Billions of dollars spent on research and development. You are also sort of begging the question. Better testing wouldn't be better if it was worse.
TFYS 1y ago
We've caused a mass extinction, we're warming the planet at a dangerous rate, we've covered it with harmful long lasting chemicals that are now in the bloodstreams of most living things, we've damaged the mental health of youth with social media, etc. All this because we don't test and think about the consequences broadly enough, the most important (if not the only) question we ask being "will this be profitable for the owners?". If one of the things I mentioned doesn't cause our extinction, it's only a matter of time until one of our inventions does, if we don't consider the effects broadly enough before putting it in production at a large scale.

amelius 1y ago

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Better testing procedures will not put us back in 1825.

unsupp0rted 1y ago
We didn't have better testing procedures and we got here. With better testing procedures, would we have gotten here sooner, in the same amount of time, or slower? My contention is slower. And this seems obvious, because in any Cold War sabotage handbook for slowing down a project, the first rule is to insist on more documentation, more consensus, more verification and validation: i.e. more "testing" and less "push to prod".
- maxerickson 1y ago
  Of course we tested our way here. Billions of dollars spent on research and development. You are also sort of begging the question. Better testing wouldn't be better if it was worse.

TFYS 1y ago

We've caused a mass extinction, we're warming the planet at a dangerous rate, we've covered it with harmful long lasting chemicals that are now in the bloodstreams of most living things, we've damaged the mental health of youth with social media, etc. All this because we don't test and think about the consequences broadly enough, the most important (if not the only) question we ask being "will this be profitable for the owners?". If one of the things I mentioned doesn't cause our extinction, it's only a matter of time until one of our inventions does, if we don't consider the effects broadly enough before putting it in production at a large scale.