4 ms·

Dynamite has been incredibly beneficial for humanity.

by Nifty3929 2mo ago

oblio 2mo ago
Has is been a net positive?
- solenoid0937 2mo ago
  certainly, it has enabled the buildout of cities and infrastructure that were previously impossible to build.
- RugnirViking 2mo ago
  there are a bunch of ways to look at this (dynamite as a specific kind of explosive, dynamite as a stand in for explosives in general, dynamite in the context of what else we would use for similar purposes if dynamite specifically wasn't invented) and most of them come out on top. It's main innovation is that its a more stable explosive, much safer to use. Without it, I think a lot more people would have died in mining and construction accidents. It's not typically the kind of thing used for warfare, but im sure it has been for some (but would they just use something else?)
underlipton 2mo ago
Indirectly. Direct application of dynamite to the human body is considerably more fraught an event than direct application of penicillin. As the fundamental goal of technology is to extend the capability of the human body, it's natural to implicitly and primarily consider what that extended capability can do to another human body. It's nice that we have tunnels through mountains and bedrock.
- grogenaut 2mo ago
  Dynamite is ~20-60% nitro glycerine and the rest "dope" aka a stabilizer which could be sawdust for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite]. If you have heart issues, you're likely taking nitro daily for chest pain. So saying it's bad is 40% wrong at least. Makes ya think.
  - underlipton 2mo ago
    You don't get to unbundle the technology that was achieved by bundling and call it okay because the components are benign. The best you can say is that dynamite was a safer alternative to preceding technology, and that its danger only comes under certain circumstances. None of that takes away from the fact that dynamite is quite dangerous when those circumstances arise, which is why it's commonly (and correctly) viewed as such. But also, going back to the original contention - whether dynamite was neutral or positive for humanity - the destruction it and its descendants wrought in war is maybe more than counterbalanced by advancements in infrastructure. That said, if the industrialization and globalization it enabled leads to biosphere-destroying climate change, I would lean towards neutral.
    - grogenaut 2mo ago
      lol, nitro is not benign, it's muuuch worse than dynamite which is why they made dynamite. Nitro will go under shock or temperature swings. And it was discovered for it's health effects before they formulated dynamite.
- usrnm 2mo ago
  Now think what ingesting a smartphone would do to your body. That's a very silly metric
  - underlipton 2mo ago
    I didn't say anything about ingesting.

Dynamite has been incredibly beneficial for humanity.

oblio 2mo ago

Has is been a net positive?

solenoid0937 2mo ago
certainly, it has enabled the buildout of cities and infrastructure that were previously impossible to build.
RugnirViking 2mo ago
there are a bunch of ways to look at this (dynamite as a specific kind of explosive, dynamite as a stand in for explosives in general, dynamite in the context of what else we would use for similar purposes if dynamite specifically wasn't invented) and most of them come out on top. It's main innovation is that its a more stable explosive, much safer to use. Without it, I think a lot more people would have died in mining and construction accidents. It's not typically the kind of thing used for warfare, but im sure it has been for some (but would they just use something else?)

underlipton 2mo ago

Indirectly. Direct application of dynamite to the human body is considerably more fraught an event than direct application of penicillin. As the fundamental goal of technology is to extend the capability of the human body, it's natural to implicitly and primarily consider what that extended capability can do to another human body. It's nice that we have tunnels through mountains and bedrock.

grogenaut 2mo ago
Dynamite is ~20-60% nitro glycerine and the rest "dope" aka a stabilizer which could be sawdust for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite]. If you have heart issues, you're likely taking nitro daily for chest pain. So saying it's bad is 40% wrong at least. Makes ya think.
- underlipton 2mo ago
  You don't get to unbundle the technology that was achieved by bundling and call it okay because the components are benign. The best you can say is that dynamite was a safer alternative to preceding technology, and that its danger only comes under certain circumstances. None of that takes away from the fact that dynamite is quite dangerous when those circumstances arise, which is why it's commonly (and correctly) viewed as such. But also, going back to the original contention - whether dynamite was neutral or positive for humanity - the destruction it and its descendants wrought in war is maybe more than counterbalanced by advancements in infrastructure. That said, if the industrialization and globalization it enabled leads to biosphere-destroying climate change, I would lean towards neutral.
  - grogenaut 2mo ago
    lol, nitro is not benign, it's muuuch worse than dynamite which is why they made dynamite. Nitro will go under shock or temperature swings. And it was discovered for it's health effects before they formulated dynamite.
usrnm 2mo ago
Now think what ingesting a smartphone would do to your body. That's a very silly metric
- underlipton 2mo ago
  I didn't say anything about ingesting.