| ▲ | ansc 13 hours ago | |
>I don't have a strong argument for this I think you do. Have we ever been successful at slowing down technological efficiency? >If that comes to pass, then what people will do with that technology, and what will change as a result, will be up to the people who are alive at the time. If it is inevitable that technology will be developed, it is also inevitable that it will be used, and in turn, further technology developed. Technology is an arms race. You can't opt out once you've started. If you do not employ the same technical progress for whatever-- propaganda, profits-- you will lose. I know you're not posing it as a problem or solution, but I believe pinning it completely on "it's how we use it" is not a valid tactic either. | ||
| ▲ | nhinck3 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
> I think you do. Have we ever been successful at slowing down technological efficiency? Genghis Khan was probably the the last person to do so. | ||
| ▲ | techpineapple 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
“Have we ever been successful at slowing down technological efficiency?” Yes, we slow down technological efficiency all the time. Nuclear Power for one. I think you could argue we did the same for blockchain, once the hype died down. I might argue most technologies we slow down by divesting from them as their core use cases subside. Facebook has been pivoting away from the metaverse which means we’re slowing down research in that area. | ||