lgw wrote:gmalivuk wrote:In any case the point, as already explained, isn't that the technology shouldn't be developed, but simply that we should be thinking about the possible unintended consequences that might come along with it.
And that is most certainly an attitude I can get behind, since there will always be pollyannas on the other side who naively assume that everything will be fine, or that we can technology ourselves out of any problems that do crop up.
I'm quite conservative about new technologies, but really "thinking about the possible unintended consequences that might come along with it" except to answer the question "should I buy this" is pointless. It's always going to steam engine when it's steam engine time. Throughout history, societies adopt that which makes them more efficient, or get conquered by neighbors who have (or, perhaps more gently, have "black ships" sail into harbor and explain that it's steam engine time now, like it or not). If you see a problem, you can feel good about not being part of the problem, but that's really it.
I'm finding the course of this conversation to be quite interesting. "People who think about the potential effects of new technology are just nervous-nelly whiners" is not really a position I associate with intelligent people, and yet I see intelligent people adopting it. What gives? Why do we simply accept the imbecilic premise of the comic, to begin with, and when did we decide that there's simply no point in thinking about things that we can't change, and how did we decide that thinking about things can't change the way we use them anyway?