Hacker News Reader

Comment by sincerely | Hacker News Reader

I mean, you're implying that "technological progress" is inherently a good thing.

Is preemptive regulation ever a good thing? How could any government have pre-regulated, say, the internet?

If you are not for technological progress, is the corollary true, that you are for technological stagnation? Is not tech stagnation also tech attrition?

Isn't it? Can you support your statement?

Edit: am I really being downvoted for asking for evidence that technological progress (the driving force that made all people on Earth extraordinaly more rich) is bad? What is wrong with you, people?

Some technological progress is good and some of it bad.

No technological progress is bad. Sometimes this progress is used badly, but knowledge is definitely not bad.

Well, I disagree. Partial knowledge and technology can be bad and extremely dangerous.

In the 19th- early 20th century they were treating radioactive substances like they were chew toys (making toys etc). The worst nuclear accident happened near lake Karachay, because they had the technology to create nuclear weapons, but did not understand, or knew the danger and how to manage the waste. (Russians were trying to catch up and create their own arsenal, had acquired fragmented knowledge that were piecing together.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/20/graveyard-ear...

I'm not sure I understand you. You're saying that we will solve lack of knowledge with stopping the pursuit of knowledge?

No. My argument is kind of the opposite. I am here countering the point that gaining knowledge is a monotonous function with respect to "goodness"/value. We need to be cautious and acknowledge our lack of knowledge, when we move ahead.

I fully agree with you, of course. That doesn't mean the technology is bad, though - it's just that people are too cocky and think they know everything. Knowledge can't be bad nor good, people and their use of knowledge are.

You can't separate a technology from it's use. Technology is created to be used.

Besides I could just as easily say some knowledge is good and some knowledge is bad. If you want to say that "knowledge is definitely not bad" then I'm going to ask you your own question - can you support that statement?

> You can't separate a technology from it's use. Technology is created to be used.

False. Every day, dozens of thousands of people in academia engage in basic research (actual term), something that does not lead to "usable technology" most of the time.

> some knowledge is good and some knowledge is bad

Are you saying that guns kill people? I thought that people kill people, using guns.

>Are you saying that guns kill people? I thought that people kill people, using guns.

I don't understand why you're resorting to metaphor, I think what I said was pretty clear. Can you support the statement that all knowledge is good?

So our knowledge about guns is bad because guns kill? I can't explain it more, sorry. I think the explanation I've given is very obvious - technology can be used badly, but it's always the people who do it, not the technology itself. Technology is neutral, you can simply not use it - knowing it still might prove important for development of other technologies, e.g. for prevention, reparation, ... after the original technology is used, in case of nuclear weapons for example (how would we know how to prevent and treat radiation illness without knowing anything about nuclear physics), and at the very extreme, the technology itself will do nothing - until people start using it. People are bad, not technology.

Why wouldn't it be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

http://newtechnologyandsociety.org

That's kind of a poor reply. "Sometimes things have unintended consequences". And a link to a book that says that technology alone won't save the environment, more things will be needed.

They may not be the answer you're looking for, but they're the answer.

At least read the pagers linked. I strongly recommend the book in its entirety.

They aren't answers to the question I asked. "Why wouldn't technological progress be a good thing?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com