

Writing about not having an opinion on technology - _Simon
http://adactio.com/journal/6123/

======
davidroberts
Whether we use a new technology for good or evil reflects our character as
individuals and as a society, not the character of the technology. Even
something generally considered beneficial like antibiotics causes problems if
selfishly misused. To be considered good or evil, volition is required.
Technology doesn't have volition. Only people do.

~~~
eurleif
>Even something generally considered beneficial like antibiotics causes
problems if selfishly misused.

What problems do antibiotics cause, besides lessening their own future
effectiveness?

~~~
davidroberts
The whole point is that it's not the technology that causes the problem, it's
the user. In the case of antibiotics, an evil dictator could restrict their
use in his nation to people of one ethnicity, so that members of other groups
quickly died from easily curable diseases.

~~~
eurleif
It's not the antibiotics being used for evil in your scenario, it's the lack
of them. It's like saying water can be used for evil by depriving people of
it. That's not at all the same thing as a technology which really can be used
for both good and evil, like nuclear power.

~~~
davidroberts
Exactly. Technology is like water. It's neutral. You could supply water to
thirsty people or destroy the environment through hydraulic strip mining. You
could build a dam and flood a village of people you don't like. I'm sure
diabolic minds could come up with a way to do evil with antibiotics if that
was all they had to work with.

~~~
eurleif
Water is that way, sure, but the specific example I gave isn't an evil use of
water. What about antibiotics? Your only example of how to cause harm using
them is by not giving them to people, which just shows that when they are
used, they cause good.

------
davidroberts
People have been sounding the alarm of destructive new technologies for
hundreds of years, but somehow the most technologically-advanced nations are
also those with healthier, longer-lived populations. It seems that people and
societies adapt over time to new technologies in ways that mitigate possible
harm, while the benefits tend to remain.

And what's the alternative? Are you going to ban human inventiveness and
forbid innovation? Good luck with that.

~~~
ucee054
_somehow the most technologically-advanced nations are also those with
healthier, longer-lived populations_

Maybe the other nations are worse off because the "advanced" have been busy
destroying them?

~~~
keithpeter
Western industrial economies have _exported_ aspects of industry that can
cause ill-health to some developing economies. Examples...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_breaking>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste>

In the Black Country in the UK about 30 years ago we saw a number of foundries
packaged up and moved to Bihar. I can't find references at present, but I'll
keep looking.

However, the overall picture is one of gain through industrial technology I
_think_.

Media technology might be different because it makes a commodity out of our
experience. Not sure how that will change things.

------
pixl97
>Whether we use a new technology for good or evil reflects our character as
individuals and as a society

You'd agree fossil fuel powered engines have been a good thing for humanity in
the past 100 years? It would be hard not to agree. Fast travel, ability go
grow huge amount of food for the population, just about every modern
convenience is based on what they have allowed.

That said, they have also enabled two world wars, mass lead poisoning of
societies, smog and other pollution types, global warming, and possible
catastrophic collapse of the global population if it stops flowing.

What defines individual selfishness when the effect is close to insignificant
per person, but the long term accumulated effects can be disastrous.

 _which snowflake caused the avalanche?_

Emergent behavior can be hard to predict. If you march across a bridge its
fine. If a 300 person marching team does it collapses. Where is the volition
in the collapse? At what number does something meaningless (or possible good)
become harmful? Trying to measure such things as binary, black or white, good
or evil when it is the improper unit to measure them will lead to failure.

~~~
pixl97
This was meant to be a reply to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5352710>

------
davidroberts
Stone Age headline: "Critics decry new bow and arrow technology: Say it will
destroy camaraderie among spear-wielding hunters and breed cowardice in the
younger generation"

~~~
pixl97
Stone Age headline: "Critics decry new bow and arrow technology: Will lead to
world wars with nuclear weapons, automated drone strikes against civilians."

------
canadev
Well said.

I'm highly skeptical of anyone who holds very strong opinions on things, in
general. You just never know what you don't know. </rumsfeld>

