3 ms·

Although I am not advocating a technological slowdown (nor do I think one is even possible) -- I think a wiser people would inhibit technology "until we're read

by jal278 13y ago

Although I am not advocating a technological slowdown (nor do I think one is even possible) -- I think a wiser people would inhibit technology "until we're ready." If the result of technological growth vastly outpacing our ability to responsibly handle its power is extinction, then it is easier to make an argument for the morality in technological caution.

Udo 13y ago
I'm not sure you read my comment (I admit it's quite long), but I'm trying to make the point that "until we're ready" is malicious crap that doesn't solve anything. To begin with, the potential for abuse is insanely high. I also made the point that by rights we're not even ready for knives yet, and statistically we'll never be. Even if "wiser people" existed to benevolently keep us at a level somewhere between animal and higher life form for what seems an indefinite time, even then this idea offers only downsides and not a hint of actual protection against the things it's supposed to slow down.
maroonblazer 13y ago
Inhibiting technology isn't realistic. It's equivalent to asking people to "stop asking questions." It will never happen. Further, we should be less concerned about the 'selfish' individual who acquires a nuclear weapon than about the sociopath or psychopath who acquires the same. No amount of "moral innovation" will help that person. Indeed, only our ability to diagnose and treat such pathology - both realized only by technology - will save us.
aaronem 13y ago
To which angels do you propose we entrust the power of evaluating "until we're ready"? The matter under discussion here is a case in the field of governance, and the entire problem in that field is how fallible humans govern other fallible humans without making disaster inevitable. Were angels available to govern, the field wouldn't exist at all, because we'd never have had the need to invent it. Suggesting that someone should "inhibit technology 'until we're ready'" reduces to suggesting that all human forms of government should be replaced with angels. Sure, no argument, that would work a lot better than anything we have now! Does it matter?
goblin89 13y ago
Unfortunately, humans don't seem to have the qualities necessary for this to happen. The more institutions cooperate to inhibit technological progress, the more there will be to gain by defecting. Unless, that is, there're sufficiently solid reasons for all players to believe that defecting is like starting a nuclear war: destructive for everyone in very close future. (I feel there should be a term for this situation.)

by jal278 13y ago

Udo 13y ago

I'm not sure you read my comment (I admit it's quite long), but I'm trying to make the point that "until we're ready" is malicious crap that doesn't solve anything. To begin with, the potential for abuse is insanely high. I also made the point that by rights we're not even ready for knives yet, and statistically we'll never be. Even if "wiser people" existed to benevolently keep us at a level somewhere between animal and higher life form for what seems an indefinite time, even then this idea offers only downsides and not a hint of actual protection against the things it's supposed to slow down.

maroonblazer 13y ago

Inhibiting technology isn't realistic. It's equivalent to asking people to "stop asking questions." It will never happen. Further, we should be less concerned about the 'selfish' individual who acquires a nuclear weapon than about the sociopath or psychopath who acquires the same. No amount of "moral innovation" will help that person. Indeed, only our ability to diagnose and treat such pathology - both realized only by technology - will save us.

aaronem 13y ago

To which angels do you propose we entrust the power of evaluating "until we're ready"? The matter under discussion here is a case in the field of governance, and the entire problem in that field is how fallible humans govern other fallible humans without making disaster inevitable. Were angels available to govern, the field wouldn't exist at all, because we'd never have had the need to invent it. Suggesting that someone should "inhibit technology 'until we're ready'" reduces to suggesting that all human forms of government should be replaced with angels. Sure, no argument, that would work a lot better than anything we have now! Does it matter?

goblin89 13y ago

Unfortunately, humans don't seem to have the qualities necessary for this to happen. The more institutions cooperate to inhibit technological progress, the more there will be to gain by defecting. Unless, that is, there're sufficiently solid reasons for all players to believe that defecting is like starting a nuclear war: destructive for everyone in very close future. (I feel there should be a term for this situation.)