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?
@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.
@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.
@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.
I make no secret that I hate nuclear power. Its very clean in some manners, but also creates pretty bad byproducts.
If we all swapped to more renewable sources 10 years ago, it'd all be good, but the upfront cost to switch, both monetary and labor-migratory will always put it off. Only when maintaining a plant costs more than shutting it down and making renewables, will we see a shift.
Governments need to incentivise green energy and stop with the EV shit as a "we care and are trying gesture"
@lunarised Well, nuclear is problematic in multiple ways, and since wind/solar seem pretty practical, it would be irresponsible to use it now. The waste that we find no way to deal with, the security concerns that are neglected... not to speak about nuclear weapons. And i hear it is pretty expensive per power generated.
But what i am doubting is that it is the cost of switching. As far as i understand, it is that fossil power infrastructure can net more profits to owners, and switching would prevent them from milking what they already have. So it is important to distinguish between cost to humanity and loss of profits for some few. Not to forget the externalization of costs, as the masses usually suffer more from the ecological damage than the owners.
I generally think oppression (sometimes indirectly and hard to see) is more of an issue than the technology itself.
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)
Is it more likely to attract people the more evil those people are?
@lunarised @Hyolobrika We are so used to having people in power that the cake being made by the many is not even in our worldview anymore ^^
@lunarised @Hyolobrika Another take: Pooling resources is a powerful way to achieve more than everyone could individually, but pooled resources are vulnerable to be highjacked by people that didn't even contribute anything.
Foremost among them that to do good usually requires wanting to do the right thing and making sacrifices to that end, whereas to do evil requires nothing more than acting in your own self-interest. Not all acting in your own self-interest is evil, of course, and not all evil is even self-interested, but the fact is, good requires people to not do things they might want to do and to do the things they might not otherwise want to do -- to choose to do the right thing, whereas evil allows people to do what they want to do and not do what they don't want to do regardless of the consequences. Without the check valve that is conscience, it is inevitable that evil is easier because you don't have to force yourself to do something you don't want to do or not do something you do want to do.
Next is the fact that it becomes incrementally harder to do good where you've already done what you can, but you can often add to the evil in the world without assistance. I've started picking up litter on the way to the park. Even if I care a lot and pick up all the litter, all I can pick up is the litter that exists. Someone who doesn't care about the state of the community can come right after me and make things worse than they ever were just by throwing some trash out the window of their car. It's infinitely easier to do great harm than to do increasing good.
As well, there's the fact that someone's good works can be turned easily to evil. As an example, many donations intended to help starving Africans get food end up in the coffers of warlords who are directly responsible for those people starving. Someone who wants to do good has to be careful about how they apply their good works. For example, let's say you find a man dying in a gutter, and so you lift him out, heal him up, feed and clothe him, and he goes on to be Pol Pot. You can say you were trying to do good, but the outcome is obviously evil. This appears to be a hypothetical that would never happen, and moreover it appears to be something outside of your control because how could you possibly have known. The selfish nature of evil means that when you offer help, the selfish are much quicker to grab for help than the selfless, and so many of the hands reaching out are just people who don't care and want free stuff, or even people who want to actively do harm and want you to pay to have them do it.
One final attribute of evil that makes it easier than good is often evil can paint itself in the imagery of good to trick people. Whereas good wants to be honest, evil has no qualms about being dishonest, and so can appear good. Rather than talk about modern politics, let's look at the classic movie "American Psycho" where the main character is a psycho, and we learn he is truly psychopathic and evil, but he pays lip service to the highest moral talking points of the day (In the movie, it's intended to be a reflection of the 1980s)
So why can good exist when evil is so much easier? The simple fact is, good is generally constructive or preservative on a long time horizon, and evil is generally destructive on a long time horizon. So while it is easier to to be evil than good in the moment, if you are consistently good you will find yourself with more then if you were consistently evil, and that's a pact and promise you make to the universe and uphold faithfully, because in the short term good wins out because it has built something and maintained things, while evil wins in the short term but tears apart everything it sees.
That being said, it must be said that we have the capacity for both good and evil because we require both to survive. We can't be purely good in this world. We can't be purely evil either. We need to find a balance that's hopefully more on the preservative and constructive side of things than the destructive and short-term side of things, but we must always remember the light can't exist without the dark.
@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.
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