• 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 5th, 2024

help-circle
  • When the discussion is about whether technology + an unregulated human society is likely to end badly, then there is not much to discuss.

    There are real life test series. In the 80s many countries put rules into place which forced the industry to filter/ treat their emissions. Technology gooood.

    Some countries restrict their people’s access to personal fire arms more than others. Statistics show that shootings are more likely, when everybody has a gun. Technology baaad.

    In my opinion it is mostly about the common rules a society agrees on. Technology amplifies both ways and needs to be moderated when it is misused.




  • I like the way you argument but I’m not able to grasp what you try to say entirely. English isn’t my native language, this may play into it.

    Technology is constrained by the rules of the physical world, but that is an underconstraint.

    I. e this sentence.:) Would you rephrase it and give an additional example?

    I kind of get the mass transit vs. cars example. Although I think both options have their advantages and disadvantages. It becomes very apparent to me when… Lets say, when you give everyone a car and send them all together into rush hour and transform our cities into something well suited for cars but not so much for people. But that doesn’t make the wheel or the engine evil in itself.

    Also: The society and and it’s values affects technology which in turn affects the environment the society lives in. Yes, I get that when I think i.e. about the industrialisation in the 19th century.

    I struggle with the idea that a tool (like a computer) is bad because is too general purpose. Society hence the people and their values define how the tool is used. Would you elaborate on that? I’d like to understand the idea.