We have seen the future, and it sucks.

Cryonics and Technological Inevitability

26th February 2011

Read it.

Why didn’t the Romans use hot-air balloons? They certainly had the technology.

One Response to “Cryonics and Technological Inevitability”

  1. tehag Says:

    “Humans are simply not diligent enough, smart enough, and above all long lived enough, to be trusted with such dangerous materials”

    Can’t say I agree with this. It’s been a commonplace that “our technological progress has outstripped our moral progress” since at least the 1930s, but I don’t see it. I think there has been moral progress of both types. (The second is CS Lewis’s observation that we no longer hang witches because witches don’t exist, not because we believe witches should live.) That commonplace is an aftershock of WW1 and it is not the final or even contemporary judgement on humanity.

    As evidence I offer the USA: we’re approaching 70 years of owning nuclear weapons: where are our enemies’ shattered cities? There aren’t any. Why isn’t France in ruins from its nuclear plants (something the author points out)? Why hasn’t the French government used it vast nuclear resources to conquer EUrope? I guess the French alone can be trusted. Oh, wait.

    I also wonder if the author believes that nuclear materials are uniquely dangerous. If so, why? If not, why has not equally-dangerous materials brought about their own catastrophes?

    “structure to facilitate the release of radioactive materials for purposes of war or terror”

    The author seems to think it wrong to use nuclear weapons in war. That is, to put it mildly, a debatable point.