My sperg take is that humans have been very lucky that our technological expansion hasn't caused our extinction

Technology is a tool not without consequence, something scientists don't understand but engineers do

@lunarised Seems climate scientists understand very well, but are ignored. Wonder why the focus on scientists and engineers, maybe you want to talk about some aspect i didn't get from the toot?

@admitsWrongIfProven The man who first split the atom, Ernest Ruthorford, would have no way of knowing the death that his discoveries would lead to. Not only the death, but the constant ever present threat of mutually assured destruction, something that was never seen in his time. He didn't live to see the effects of even a nuclear bomb, and I wonder if he did, whether he would see his discovery as a feat of humanity, or a discovery of terror

@lunarised Ah, more of a "can know" thing: engineers work with established technology, scientists also bring upon new technology. So it's not a failing of scientists, but the nature of things.

Yeah, that is another aspect, glad i asked.

@admitsWrongIfProven I'm not putting any blame on scientists. Rutherford being "huh, I do the thing and I make helium and the electrons go missing" couldn't have given him any clue about what was going to happen (yes I'm aware Rutherford wasn't that clueless)

@lunarised Hmm. With irresponsible use of new technology widespread, one could argue that nothing new should be made, since humanity is not mature enough to handle it. But that makes no sense as long as the immature entity has no mature entity to parent.

@admitsWrongIfProven
I think my point is it's a process that is inevitable

Physicist discovers something seemingly new but a bit useless
Chemist finds a niche use
Engineer builds something productive for society
Powers that be coerce engineers to build morally bad thing

It's unfortunately a thing where the only time you realize the danger in a technology, it's too late not to weaponise it

@lunarised What i had been holding back is the emphasis on the last line, but now that you brought it up... "powers that be" are more dangerous to us than any technology.

I think it becomes obvious with fossil fuel usage: people are often positive about adapting alternatives, but it is not something individuals can do well. A concentration of power is displaying its reluctance to do what is known to be necessary for humanitys survival. The technology would not have been a problem, had it been abandoned when the dangers became clear and alternatives were feasible.

Is it possible to have power that isn't evil?
I reckon that power is merely a multiplier for whatever tendencies exist in a person already. And is there any person who is 100% good?

(Not sure if this is true or not but decided to post anyway as a conversation starter)
@Hyolobrika @admitsWrongIfProven I think the human desire for preservation will always have a evil lean to it, I don't think most people are corrupt, I just think that people like to make sure they get their slice of pie before others, and to them, they likely see plenty of pie left to go around. But when it's at the bottom, you look up and people towards the top get bigger and bigger bits. I don't think it's evil that caused it... just human nature multiplied several times
Does power multiply evil more than good?
Is it more likely to attract people the more evil those people are?
Follow

@Hyolobrika @lunarised I agree with the multiplication take. I also agree that people with problematic wishes (here called "evil" and "human nature") are attracted to power.
The real question that i see is how to keep that in check. What we do get is power keeping reason in check, which is not ideal.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.