[climatologist]

Birth rates don't have much to do with the superiority of technology over biology. The most technologically advanced nations will determine the course of history just like they have in the past and right now that's the US and China.

[mrwnmonm]

Does advanced technology matter if it can't make people happy?

[climatologist]

I like Zizek's take on this, being happy is overrated and most people are actually pretty happy with not doing anything other than watching YouTube and playing video games.

Plus, I don't see any way to prevent technological progress. It has a "will" of its own and will continue to advance. Jaques Ellul has already written about this but I think Heidegger and McLuhan are also in the same camp with similar ideas.

[mrwnmonm]

> and most people are actually pretty happy with not doing anything other than watching YouTube and playing video games.

Are you this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoKRS_eWZY

[climatologist]

Chomsky? No, but I also like Chomsky's perspective on most matters. He's more often correct than not.

[mrwnmonm]

Not funny.

[tboyd47]

And does it matter if there are no people?

[mrwnmonm]

No. But what kind of evidence do you have to push this prediction?

[tboyd47]

I'm not predicting that the future has no people. I'm saying that if the play is technology versus people, you should go to the side of the people.

Because who is going to use the technology?

If the northern juggernauts (U.S., Russia, and China) a.k.a. "Judeo-Christian West" -- what a misnomer that is -- (Europe is not even a consideration at this point, just look at France) are not reproducing their own population, but exporting technology to the rest of the world via proxy wars, smuggling, and aborted invasions, and importing people who have divided allegiances to their home countries, how does the power dynamic play out?