And how do we know that those inventions are actually better for us?
We created nuclear weapons and yes it does seem to have given us 80+ years without another direct global conflict. That's a good thing in the short term, but what about longer? Are we to expect that nukes will never be used? Are we also to assume that the invention of nukes doesn't incentivize people to invent an even worse weapon?
The same goes for all the others. Computers have allowed us to do amazing things, there are also many in the industry warning that they may one day replace us - some even want that to happen. I don't know what benefit you can point to for pesticides and herbicides, maybe if you look at how much tonnage of food is produced and ignore all the terrible side effects of polluting the planet with synthetic chemicals that specifically end life? As far as Pax Americana, maybe its been a good thing? I don't know how to distinguish between the relative peace from the threat of nukes vs the threat of economic warfare, and our K-shaped economy does seem pretty directly related to the incentives created by Pax Americana.
My point isn't that all of these are bad, or that there aren't some good from any one of them (again, except for maybe all the poisons). My point is that we don't know what the results will be on any meaningful scale - 80 years is a drop in the bucket when discussing life on this planet.
Setting aside the obvious hypocrisy of typing an argument like that on a cell phone or personal computer, if you expect humans to contemplate timescales longer than 80 years, you'll need to wait another 80 million years for the necessary evolutionary processes to take effect. And there's no guarantee they will move the needle in the direction you prefer.
I'm not sure how my ability type out a message here on a computer is hypocritical of the argument I made above. My point was that we can't yet know if these turned out to be net positive inventions for humanity, or as you said to everyone. I didn't argue they are bad or that they must be avoided, only that it Amy turn out to be a net negative in the long term.
I must assume that you don't find arguments related to climate change compelling given that they require considering scales beyond 80 years. If you are concerned with climate change I'd be very curious how you square that circle.
We created nuclear weapons and yes it does seem to have given us 80+ years without another direct global conflict. That's a good thing in the short term, but what about longer? Are we to expect that nukes will never be used? Are we also to assume that the invention of nukes doesn't incentivize people to invent an even worse weapon?
The same goes for all the others. Computers have allowed us to do amazing things, there are also many in the industry warning that they may one day replace us - some even want that to happen. I don't know what benefit you can point to for pesticides and herbicides, maybe if you look at how much tonnage of food is produced and ignore all the terrible side effects of polluting the planet with synthetic chemicals that specifically end life? As far as Pax Americana, maybe its been a good thing? I don't know how to distinguish between the relative peace from the threat of nukes vs the threat of economic warfare, and our K-shaped economy does seem pretty directly related to the incentives created by Pax Americana.
My point isn't that all of these are bad, or that there aren't some good from any one of them (again, except for maybe all the poisons). My point is that we don't know what the results will be on any meaningful scale - 80 years is a drop in the bucket when discussing life on this planet.