Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is the drama funny? Sure. But anyone who unironically thinks technological advancement is inherently good should check their mail :marseyunabomber2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Telling people to stop developing technology is inherently r-slurred though

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why? There are many cases where a behavior is possible or legal, but is at least semi-effectively controlled by social conventions. Some lines of technological development should be at least frowned upon.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That works with technology which requires a degree of skill which can be restricted or specialty equipment, this requires neither.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yea but it's unachievable in practice. You may absolve yourself by choosing not to develop some particular tech, but then someone else will do it in this world. Sure morals and culture bind us in what we should and shouldn't do, but those things are not immutable even when considered within confines of a country, much less so on the international scale. I think for example that most people here would agree that messing with human biology and genetics is a bad idea. But at the same time, if we have a potential to develop this field further right now and decide not to take it, some chinks in china will do it. And they will do it in an even less ethical way and use it for even more monstrous purposes. That's how I see those things

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

some chinks in china will do it

:marseydeadinside2: they already have

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Burger nerds seriously overestimates how competent chinks are at technological development. They can't even figure out how to make their own semiconductor chip even though they want to start a war against the neighbor that makes that shit for them.

By the way, the 60-80 years old who's in seat of power right now at CCP is even more of a boomer than Republican so they actually want to go back to the time of Mao if they could.

Codenerds rhetoric surrounding China just proves they are neurodivergent monkey who never payed attention to any history class to understand current geopolitics

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No some random chink genetically modified a human fetus to be hiv resistant than plopped it into a woman, making the first genetically modified organism. This isn’t difficult at all, the tech has been out for decades and basically anyone can do it, just that the vast majority of people realize how horrifying doing that is

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think it's horrifying, in fact I think that certain celebrities would pay big bucks for it

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nah.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Expecting people to obey social conventions is stupid, because that only works out of fear of punishment. For example, take a look at this blog post, where I effectively tell people how to make low cost drones that can blow up planes. Will that eventually get some people killed? Absolutely! Do I give a shit? Heck no! If our leaders are too stupid to figure out the solution to this problem, and too stubborn to pay me big bucks to engineer a solution, then it's not my problem. If society wants to shame me, good luck. If somebody comes to my door screaming hysterically and making threats I'll put a bullet in their head. I'm not afraid of the stupid normie lynch mob. They should be afraid of me.

This was just an example, but my point is that controlling the spread of dangerous technologies is totally unmanageable through things like social norms and customs. Even when those norms are enforced by law it's still extremely hard to manage. The only way to achieve it requires one of three scenarios.

A) You have a single government that controls the entire world and can pass laws that every country in the world will obey without question. We had the ability to create such a government after World War 2 when we were the only country to possess nukes but our globohomo elites pussied out like the gutless wimps that they are.

B) You find technical solutions to render the dangerous technology harmless. Our globohomo elites are too stupid to do this because due to the combined effects of assortative mating and nepotism, many of them are inbred r-slurs. They delude themselves into thinking that they're really smart because it soothes their egos to think that they attained their lofty positions through competence rather than just dumb luck, and they're surrounded by yes-men and flatterers who will not contradict this inaccurate self-image.

C) Create a society whereby all of the most dangerously intelligent people who create these kinds of technologies are absorbed into the ruling class so that they are incentivized to protect society rather than destabilize or destroy it. In other words, turn the wolves into sheepdogs by giving them a stake in protecting the flock. (The side benefit is that you will also have a society with a hypercompetent ruling class.) This is what meritocracy is supposed to do but of course we do not live in a real meritocracy, we live in an nepotistic oligarchy masquerading as a meritocracy.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1684141203930681.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Your username is Jesus, but this doesn't seem like very Christlike behavior. Curious

:#marseyshapiro:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, don't reply like this, please do another wall of unhinged rant please.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not afraid of the stupid normie lynch mob. They should be afraid of me.

They are afraid of you. That’s why they’re there with a rope, dude.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Then they're not afraid enough.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#soycry:

:!#soycry:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Have the balls to be explicit instead of hiding behind the generality of "some" when you call for something to be banned

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well, I didn't call for anything to be banned in that comment. I was talking about the use of social pressure to police behavior (I interpreted "telling people to stop developing technology" as a social rather than legal pressure, since the original thread was someone complaining about a technology).

If I was calling for something to be banned, I would certainly only want "some" technology banned, rather than "all," because it varies in utility and social benefit/cost. I used a generality because I was talking about the general topic of technology, not specific examples.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We managed to curtail eugenics by about 100 years. Not everything is impossible.


https://i.rdrama.net/images/17121718107069042.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Eugenics is more of an ideology than technology. Seems like the technology that allows it is there or developing (like gene editing)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Look what pandora found in her box this time!

:#marseygiftboxmarsey:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Huh, that's weird. No hope.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Awwwww

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>technological advancement is bad because it can harm people.

>let’s murder people to stop it from happening.

Anarchists at it again.


Follower of Christ :marseyandjesus: Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The ends

ALWAYS

Justify the means

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Their whole argument falls apart when you remember that "people I like" are a morally distinct category from "people I don't like"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You don’t even need to say technological advancement, just leave it blank. Then leave the group blank. Then you have a truism about human nature

>let’s destroy those people so that we can prevent people from being destroyed:marseybigbrain:

Tale as old as time, and it will not change just because somebody thinks they “won” completely and finally in WW2


![](/images/1675390276375391.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>he posts on his rdrama.net account

:marseyeyeroll:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Some technologies are good, some are neutral or debatable, and some are harmful. The idea that we either have no guardrails on technology, or else go back to the stone age, is a false dichotomy.

Nuclear weapons created a nonzero chance that humanity could render the planet unlivable. They are a harmful technology. Society has accepted various restrictions on nuclear development as a result.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

you could also argue that nuclear weapons have saved millions of lives by preventing war between world powers, and are directly responsible for the research and advancement of nuclear energy, which can prevent the planet from becoming unlivable by superceding fossil fuels.

taking a step further back, research on radioactivity has changed countless lives over the past century. where would we be now if all research in the field was ended because r-slurs put radium in toothpaste?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fossil fuels would not kill the planet, they present statistical problems rather than existential ones. Nuclear technology is useful for many things, and I certainly wouldn't oppose the use of nuclear power now that it already exists. However, the development of superweapons adds too severe a risk to human existence. If action X increases human quality of life by 20%, but raises the risk of manmade human extinction by 1%, I would see it as a morally wrong action. Risk aversion becomes more important the more people are affected by your decision.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

you could also argue that nuclear weapons have saved millions of lives by preventing war between world powers,

@geese_suck is right. All those words won't fix your r-sluration.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Except if we didn’t invent the nuke first then oops the Soviets did and now we’re all living under communism

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Frick you b-word I want humanity to go to space

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So develop the space technology? There has been remarkably little process on space exploration precisely because of short term profit seeking and lack of broader social goals behind our technological development. We could have gone to Mars but we made the TikTok algorithm instead.

:soycry: It's not the same!

STEMstrags' talents could have been developed in many ways, the market selected for stupid or shortsighted ones.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Keep yourself safe then. That's a start.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Die the frick off. I fricking hate your species. You cannot ever be allowed to leave low earth orbit.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I want humanity to go to space

:#soyjakfront:


:#marseydarkpizzashill: The Democratic RethugliKKKan Party will collapse by 2030. :#marseydarkpizzashill:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

but imagine how much more racism there can be

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

![](/images/16754058200417955.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Neighbors in rDrama crying about a faceswap app in 2023 :marseylaughpoundfist:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseyplacenofun:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>klimlp commented on Feb 21, 2022

>I think the whole problem is electricity! It needs to be turned off! This technology could be used to destroy our planet. Think about it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseystrawman::#marseyshooting:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We must return :#monke:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.