Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> If the technology represents a big advantage to a group of people, history shows that is what eventually happens.

It depends on what you mean by "advantage" and "group of people" here. An "advantage" is more than utilitarian in most cultures, and has to fit into the ideological context in which it emerges in order to be even considered relevant. Universally we assume that writing provides an unmatched advantage in discovery and knowledge production. But many cultures who had contact with writing did not take it up. The same is true of the wheel.

If you are conducting activity to appease / observe the reaction of Huitzilopochtli (Mexica) or "The Market" (American, etc) you are going to get different technical practices and likely divergent ideas about what is advantageous.

> And what's your argument?

That in a democratic society that is literate and at least somewhat aware of its own history (as a practice), we can and should make informed collective decisions about what we want to do. We don't have to watch how the gods of our time -- Huitzilopochtli or The Market -- react in order to do this. Insofar as we do, however, we limit the kinds of collective decisions we can make, though in no sense is that inevitable.

> So yeah we could choose not to invent spears or choose not to invent metal armor, or choose not to invent gunpowder, or...

Exactly. We can choose.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact