[ClumsyPilot]

> You are aware that disruption has been the human condition for 1000's of years, yes?

So what? Slavery and The Plague and Cancer was part of the human condition too.

And its wrong - technological disruption only appreared recently. For ten thousand years my ancestors lived nomadic lives on the eurasian plains, their lives were disrupted when a gun and a steam engine were invented few hundred years ago.

[danielbln]

And now we don't die anymore because of simple infection or other preventable diseases. Many if not all of the things that keep us fed, warm and healthy today are only because we endured technological disruption.

[ClumsyPilot]

So which is it, 'human condition includes disruption, there is nothing wrong with human conditions and therefore there is nothing wrong with disruption

or

'human condition sucks and the only way to fix it is with disruption'?

Are you just making it up as you go along? Do you feel the need to justify disruption at any cost?

[danielbln]

There is no need to be angry. No, I'm not making it up as I go, I'm saying that the human condition in the long term significantly benefits from technological disruption, even if that's not always true in the short-term. I'm not justifying anything either, I'm just telling you what happened.

Now, we cannot suppress technological disruption either, we can regulate and channel it, but you won't be getting your pastoral society back in which everything stays as is for a few thousand years . I think that's good, you Kay think that's bad, but it just is.

[ClumsyPilot]

I am not angry, and I am not even saying you are wrong.

I am just pointing out that the post by halr9000 and your post both try to put disruption on the pedestal, but the arguments are mutually exclusive, and in fact they profess opposite values.

I got a confused, through both posts were made by the same person, hence 'making it up as you go along', sorry about that.