| HN Mirror

> Being able to do it is not the same as actually doing it.

You could have smart devices similarly only react or go to active mode when you press a button on your watch etc.

> The rest of your argument, sorry but I can not respond without feeling angry. It just feels like the rationalizations of a selfish, too-clever-by-half neomaniac.

Okay, I agree that your words can describe me well, but what do you think the end game for humans or tech is? Why do we exist here? Are we just here to reproduce over and over again with no change? And if there's always change, aren't you curious what will happen in the future?

Why did you go from one extreme (all new things are super exciting and should be desirable by anyone) to another (we are here to reproduce over and over again with no change) like this is a binary option?

"Tech" is a means, not an end. What problems are we solving with this tech, and what problems are we creating with the introduction of new technology? These are the only questions that I have when talking about technology, and I really don't see much sense in trying to turn into an existential question.

> aren't you curious what will happen in the future?

Not really, no. When facing a moral dilemma, I look to the past to see what mistakes can be avoided. I try to live in the present and take things as they are. I might look at the "current instant" to see where things are headed and if there are new opportunities being presented, but "the future" is something so out of reach and so out of control that I really give as little thought as possible.

What would you then say that should be the goal for humans as a collective?

I don't think there should be one. I also think that everyone that has come up with their idea is misguided, and all that tried to implemented one was/is a authoritarian psychopath who should be stripped of any power as soon as their nature got revealed.

So then we float aimlessly, pointlessly and meaninglessly towards nothingness?

Do you think that all the great artists from the past were motivated by technological progress in itself? Do you think Michaelangelo would make even more impressive works if he had better chisels or brushes? Do you think that The Beatles' would be even more popular if they could compose their songs on a computer?

Or even in a more mundane situation, do you think that someone volunteering on a hospital to entertain sick kids do not find meaning in what they do because they are not effectively helping to cure cancer?

There is another thread where you say you are not religious. I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but if you are bowing down to the Altar of Technology to find meaning for your life, maybe religion is not so bad after all?

arter4 871 days ago

Not OP but, regardless of why we exist here, change is not always good.

Change simply means that something becomes something else. It isn't inherently good.

For example, now I walk with both legs, but if a car hits me, I might stay on a wheelchair for some time, which is change, but not a welcome one. Before you say "this is a strawman argument", think about technologies like "cloud seeding", which are supposed to enforce specific weather conditions by spraying certain substances in the air (not clear on the details). This sounds like a cool idea, but is it, when some studies suggest this is dangerous for the environment? Shouldn't we (as humans) think about the effects before embracing change?

So, to me, change can be good or bad (or, often, a combination). If the goal of human life was change, it should probably be "change for good". Which is complicated - what is good and what is bad? Who gets to decide? Can I know in advance? What if something is eventually to be bad, can we get back? But that's how life is, no matter the end goal: complicated.

I would think the main goal of humans should be to understand what is behind all that. Why do we exist. It seems to me the best way to do that is to develop tech, and I would hope quick as otherwise I personally will obviously die before finding out.

What do you think the goal is?

I just think that at some point we will find out anyway and why not quicker then? Why let 5 or 10 more generations of humans go on if at some point we might reach an answer or an endpoint of some sort.

> I just think that at some point we will find out anyway and why not quicker then?

Because you and the corporations you support are making the lives of people worse now, and you are trading their wellbeing for your very minimal, personal comfort, and rationalizing it away with Pascal Wager-style of technocracy where "tech" could save you from dying.

mewpmewp2 870 days ago

Which people's lives are they making worse?