[wartywhoa23]

> Looks like you're pretty sure of that.

Knowing the history of the humankind is what makes me pretty sure of that.

The extent of misery and destruction is directly proportional to the level of technological advancements, and I don't like the idea of sacrificing millions of lives in the name of the figurative HVAC, smartphone and other benefits of civilization. Or billions in the name of whatever benefits the next VC money stake should bring.

> I wonder how is it different from, say, digital calculators.

Did a single digital calculator ever stop any war, or liquidate a psychopath who orders people to go kill and die?

[rowanG077]

> The extent of misery and destruction is directly proportional to the level of technological advancements.

By statistics of war, poverty rates etc this is trivially false. I think you are really, really underestimating how hard life was pre-industrial revolution.

[dandaka]

10000 years ago we had 10-15% deaths from violence (skeletal evidence). As well as infections, child mortality, starvation and injuries.

Benefits of civilization eliminated most of that + increased quality of life dramatically.

[mejutoco]

I get the idea, but:

Ten thousand years ago (around 8000 BCE), the global human population was estimated to have been roughly 5 million people. This is significantly smaller than the current population of just Poland (about 36 million).

In absolute numbers there might be more now, even if the percent is smaller. It is difficult to compare this things without having a specific place in mind.

[dandaka]

Not sure I follow your point.

The fact that humankind grew from 5M to 8.3B, while dramatically improving longevity and quality of life speaks volumes. Multiply life quality × population × life duration, not only "misery and destruction" is not the case, but you could rather see powers of positive technology influence.

[handoflixue]

Are we just going to totally ignore the Polio vaccine? Modern medicine? Modern agriculture?

If you had a magic button that turned off all those "benefits of civilization", millions would die. If you managed to drag agriculture down with the rest, the death toll would be in the billions.

I don't understand how you can possibly think you "know history" without recognizing that technological progress has taken us from constant warfare to such a state of abundance that war is actually rare and noteworthy in much of the world.

[wartywhoa23]

> technological progress has taken us from constant warfare to such a state of abundance that war is actually rare and noteworthy in much of the world.

Let's try to have an actual argument. How many people, in absolute numbers, were affected by that constant warfare of past, which past exactly do you mean, and how many people were/are affected by "rare" wars of modern history?

80 million people killed or maimed with arrows, swords and catapults over centuries and 80 million killed or maimed with fruits of industrial revolution over 6 years of WWII are very different figures.

[virgildotcodes]

Ratios > absolute numbers, of course.

If only 4 people die violent deaths out of a total population of 5, that’s an extremely violent population to be a part of.

If 8 people die violent deaths out of a total population of 100,000. That’s a much more peaceful population to be a part of, despite the greater number of absolute deaths.

[Windchaser]

Ok, if we’re only taking absolute numbers, let’s flip it around. How many people live happy, peaceful, healthy lives now?

Orders of magnitude more than in prehistoric days.

[sethammons]

You are mixing numbers and percents. 1B people and 100 hurt vs 1K people and 100 hurt vs 100 people and 100 hurt.

Is it better to have lived as an individual one of these fictional cohorts? Is it better for the group in the same or different one?

Is it better to live and suffer than to not live?

I think the answers are obvious.

[wartywhoa23]

Do those 100 hurt out of 1B experience less pain than 100 out of 100?