3 ms·
A counter-point to the 'halting human progress is good enough' argument: If technological advance enables a person or society to be more destructive by orders o
by jal278 12y ago
A counter-point to the 'halting human progress is good enough' argument: If technological advance enables a person or society to be more destructive by orders of magnitude, then humanity's outcome (even if we are progressing, albeit slowly) could still be catastrophic.
Take atomic weapons: It is clear that as a society we are not ready for the responsibility that they grant us (e.g. they've edged us close to Armageddon a few more times than is comfortable).
- moron4hire 12y agoDon't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that nukes are a good idea, nor do I think anyone should have them, even countries that could meet the most stringent requirements of "responsibility", but doesn't the fact that we haven't destroyed ourselves yet rather much make it not clear that we're not responsible enough for nuclear weapons? Yes, we've come close to Armagettingiton a few times in the past, but don't you think the fact that we haven't demonstrated that responsibility ultimately won the day?
- Zigurd 12y agoThat's a bit like careening down the road narrowly missing a terrible collision a few times and saying "My driving is improving." Nuclear weapons are the most reliable way we have to destroy our civilization. We need to get rid of them as soon as possible.
- moron4hire 12y agoWell yeah, but if you successfully do it for 50 years, are you a bad driver or are you just competing in a racing league? Again, my point is, it's not "clear".