Drawing the line between positive use of technology and degeneracy

Submitted by [deleted] t3_111ql3x in Futurology

One of the things an advanced society with powerful automation and transhuman augmentation tech is going to need to do is draw the line between what is a legit use of technology and what is just decadent and degenerate. Obviously this line is somewhat arbitrary but where it is drawn will have a big impact on a civilizations future.

For example, an automatic kitchen that cooks any meal you want seems like a very beneficial use of automation but a bed with an automatic toilet robot is just degenerate and lazy (unless you are injured or something). The same problems exist with human augmentation. Increasing your intelligence to better understand the universe and the self would be widely considered as an honorable pursuit while turning yourself into a furry sex machine may not be. Obviously there will be a lot of gray areas as well.

Hopefully future societies will have cultural institutions that help prevent or at least discourage dead end and degenerate uses of technology. Where do you guys think this line should be drawn?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kittymoma918 t1_j8gab4j wrote

My rights and freedom of choice end where someone else's begin If I want to become a 7 foot tall purple bunnyrabbit, that's my perogitive . But I don't have the right to insist that someone else do the same.

79

shadowrun456 t1_j8hv7oa wrote

>But I don't have the right to insist that someone else do the same.

Agreed, and just to add, you also don't have the right to insist that someone else does not do the same (this is for people like OP).

16

[deleted] OP t1_j8gegm7 wrote

I agree, but it is also society's right to shun people who chose to do such bizarre things. For example, doing such a thing might get you banned from most space colonization efforts.

−56

staletoastandbeans t1_j8gqint wrote

Society doesn’t have rights. Society isn’t a person. People have rights.

63

superzimbiote t1_j8gk85y wrote

Where are you getting this idea that it’s society’s right to judge people’s “bizarre” behaviors?

49

[deleted] OP t1_j8gla8x wrote

If a substantial majority of people don't want to be around someone because he or she is doing something that is seen as gross or weird, I don't see anything wrong with this. Obviously, if it is harmless, they should be allowed to continue doing it but people should not be forced to accept them for it if they don't want to. This is what I mean by "judging."

−38

EnomLee t1_j8h2bsv wrote

Well going by the vote counts, a substantial majority of people don't want to be around you. Are you going to respect their will?

Or nah?

44

superzimbiote t1_j8glvmt wrote

We put up with weird shit all the time because that’s what tolerance entails. And also weird sexual acts or practices or things like religious practices that are seen as weird are usually restricted to private spaces of consenting and willlingly participating individuals. Like yeah I get that we all kinda judge the folks over at /r/sounding but ultimately I don’t think individuals should be ostricized or have civil libirties removed for shit like that. I don’t think it’s our duty as a collective to police people’s private actions as long as no harm is being brought onto others

30

Bowdensaft t1_j8i11yg wrote

A substantial majority of people didn't want to be around Jews or black people for very similar reasons at certain points in history. They felt they had a duty to "shun" them for being different.

See where this thinking brings you? Once someone gets to decide who is right and who is degenerate, that's when society becomes unbearable for innocent people.

20

Ivan_The_8th t1_j8m3xcb wrote

The difference is what race you have isn't a choice, OP was talking about people who consciously choose to be weird. I'm not agreeing with them, but that's a giant stretch to compare what OP says to racism.

1

Bowdensaft t1_j8m8dta wrote

It's the line of thinking I mean. It's not always a big leap to apply the logic of shunning certain behaviours to shunning certain people, especially when you blame said behaviours on particular races. For example, stealing is bad -> "black people steal a lot" -> black people are bad is an easy chain to make, especially if someone who is already racist comes along and wants to manipulate others to join them.

0

Kaninenlove t1_j8hf2kp wrote

I think you would find most people doing weird stuff aren't interested in being accepted by other individuals

9

Noietz t1_j8iqc0v wrote

I'm unfortunately going to have to summon godwins law, but by your logic the nazis were justified by hating the jews lol

8

Wonderful_Weird_2843 t1_j8ipbsi wrote

Personally I see a person looking "like a giant purple rabbit" that had flexible thinking and problem solving in many different areas and environments a better bet on surviving than someone classifying that choice as ridiculous. Besides the possible physical benefits (fur insulation, better hearing, veganism), they would probably be a hell more fun to hang out with.

11

SniffingSnow t1_j8olhqj wrote

Ah I disagree. Society can set social norms, but society can't dictate what is and isn't allowed. If someone wants to live outside of those social norms than they have every right to do so.

1

AnarkittenSurprise t1_j8gc8rg wrote

The farther tech gets us from a scarcity economy, hopefully the further we will get from judgy social tyrany opinions like this.

No one has some objective correct definition of what's "honorable" vs "degenerate", and if they aren't causing harm to or impeding someone else's freedom, it's none of our business what they do.

Our secret to success has been in our relentless permutations, not our obnoxious penchant for forced assimilation.

60

[deleted] OP t1_j8gdwgh wrote

Extreme power without any accountability or rules is extremely dangerous. I would argue that the more advanced our technology gets, the more responsible and careful we need to be with our use of it.

As I said, there is no objective definition of right and wrong but there are certainly objective consequences for actions.

−10

AnarkittenSurprise t1_j8ghna9 wrote

Do you consider individual decadence or degeneracy in your examples to be dangerous?

22

[deleted] OP t1_j8gklbp wrote

Not necessarily, it really depends on how widespread and extreme they are and at what scale they happen at. For example, a few immature near-baselines indulging in some perverse hedonism is one thing, but a hyper-intelligent Jupiter brain post-human doing this is a terrifying abomination.

The problem is that if a civilization encourages these sorts of behaviors without restraint it can eventually start to wreak havoc at all levels of society. I think people should definitely have leeway, but I also think society and culture should have some standards as well especially for those who seek power.

−1

CloserToTheStars t1_j8gwgpq wrote

I think you’ll be one of the people saying “in my time everything was just better and simpler” there is no line. There is only people and getting more close to what it actually means to be a awareness or personality, without limitations or constraints. What is the core of us. If that means a naked turtle then so it is.

21

[deleted] OP t1_j8h4t2i wrote

Definitely not. I am all for human augmentation and automation. I just believe that these things should be approached with a degree of discipline and forethought. It's the same principle as how being rich doesn't mean you need to consume for no reason.

2

CloserToTheStars t1_j8j5izt wrote

So you are specifically talking about a time period in which decisions gradually shift overtime. Why? You can not control anything that happens anyway. Well see when it comes. There is a lot more to worry about than what if we would be in a future where this or this would be the topic of conversation. That’s a lot of guess work and seems like a lot of wasted energy. It’s as if you say 10 years back I see Facebook now let’s all think how to guide the social structure towards a more accepting online culture towards coming out of the closet when your are gay. while we have cancel culture, 20 genders, body dysphormia, fake news etc etc. So 1 you do not know the details of the problems 2 you do not know if it will happen 3 you can never guess what will happen when and you will be wrong, looking for an old metric in a sea of a million new variables. I like the mental gymnastics and do it myself as well but ur kinda throwing a needle in a haystack and ask people to be on the same path as you.

1

Kaninenlove t1_j8hf93k wrote

Can you provide a proper mechanism on how this "havoc" will ensue from a more hedonistic society?

9

[deleted] OP t1_j8hnfth wrote

Focus on hedonism above all else is not a logically balanced goal. Pleasure can only be experienced when it is compared to a less pleasurable state of being so thus a society focused entirely on hedonism will endlessly seek more and more extreme forms of pleasure. It's a road straight to insanity.

Again this isn't to say that everyone needs to be some austere monk, it's just that I think that a post-scarcity ultra-tech society should teach its citizens how to balance their hedonistic desires in a way that is balanced and doesn't lead to ruin. It's the same principle as how we allow alcohol but discourage people from being alcoholics.

1

Kaninenlove t1_j8hnwr5 wrote

I suppose that is a good argument against trancendant hedonism, but it doesn't seem entirely aligned with the rest of your post.

8

backroundagain t1_j8hpthy wrote

I don't think that's teachable. The best current society can do is scare tactics, mostly in the form of religion. Either you chase that sort of thing, or it's a non-issue for you.

5

TheInvisibleJeevas t1_j8ilht3 wrote

I don’t think there’s some inherent “dangerous” level of hedonism. If it was impossible to overdose on heroine, no one would have a problem with it. The human brain can only process so many positive chemicals before it reaches a plateau. We’d have to augment the brain itself to both process more of those chemicals and make it possible for us to perceive those increased chemical loads. It might be a useless endeavor, since peaking and returning to baseline is how human brains are wired, and if we keep raising the baseline and peak capacity, we’re just staying the same, relatively speaking. But will it do harm? Nah.

And remember, different cultures see different things as “degenerate.” There isn’t even consensus among the human species on what is and isn’t socially appropriate. And social rules and tastes shift within cultures overtime. Many would say that maximizing the ability for individual expression should be the goal of humanity. As long as you’re not hurting others, let your freak flag fly.

3

AnarkittenSurprise t1_j8j1mzl wrote

I don't think we're communicating on a foundation of common values here.

These labels of innocuous things as degenerate, depraved, abomination, ect. are severely problematic.

Futurism is exciting, but you need a strong base in human history to get a feel for where we're going. If you think the future should be defined by stifling innovation under some form of central cultural authorities, then I'm not sure you have a good understanding of Humanity's trend towards self-determination.

The most successful, stable, and innovative cultures will be the least oppressive. The role of a state in modern, let alone future times should be to protect individual liberties wherever possible, not curtail them.

Traditional group think and monoculturalism is a system of violence against those who don't fit the mold, and will lead to stagnation and revolution.

3

rileyoneill t1_j8gll0g wrote

I think we are really not in a place to try to judge the honor of future cultures. There will likely be a lot of things we are doing now that will be socially unacceptable to people of the future. They could see the entire animal livestock industry as wrong and society tolerating such a thing is wicked and cruel.

We are really not in a position to prevent people who haven't been born yet with what they might do with the technology they invent.

People of the future might have an extreme aversion to Furries just because they associate it with their Millennial and Zoomer Great grant parents.

49

[deleted] OP t1_j8gmk7m wrote

I agree. Hopefully, future technologies will allow us to be more compassionate and ethical. But it is important to remember, that the ideals we have now will in fact influence the honor of future societies just like how the ideals of our ancestors have influenced the honor of our current society.

−11

Wolkkin t1_j8gqmg9 wrote

And in many cases, soundly reject them.

The typical American standard of ‘degeneracy’ would shock a Victorian (British) era person, while a Roman citizen would wonder why we were so uptight about exposing our bodies. And that’s just one example of a cultural more; in response, both Roman and Victorian would wonder where our slaves went, and the typical American would (hopefully) be shocked at their callous treatment of another human being.

I agree with your sentiment of careful thought with the extent and implementation of new tech, but the term “degeneracy” places a moral scale on the situation that invites conflict and abuse. I would suggest something more like ‘just’ or ‘equitable’ as a better phrase for discussion.

(…and while it seems like being picky about the language is silly or petty, I believe it is vital to clear communication and eliminating grey areas that invite “word over spirit” loopholes and ‘rule’ bending.) Just my two bits.

27

[deleted] OP t1_j8gshoe wrote

Injustice and inequity are not the same as decadence although the former can and often does lead to the latter. This is especially true if decadence starts to appear in the highest echelons of society. It is particularly scary when you apply this paradigm to the posthuman condition.

−11

rileyoneill t1_j8gzajv wrote

I think the ideals will influence future generations, but so will our short comings. Especially any short comings that have negative effects on future generations. Things past generations did that were wrong also greatly influenced us.

1

superzimbiote t1_j8gkona wrote

Every time I hear someone start talking about the duty of society at judging people’s behaviors based on some abstract idea of “degeneracy”, it always stinks of watered down proto fascist ideology. “Degeneracy” has been used as an excuse to justify act of xenophobia and the outcasting of minorities so many times. As a commenter pointed out, people’s individual freedoms end at begin at their fellow man’s.

If someone wants to pull a pyrocynical and jack off to furry fart inflation role play using the latest VR AI porn technology then by all means they can go ahead as long as every party involved is consenting. It’s none of my business

39

[deleted] OP t1_j8gm635 wrote

I think there needs to be a healthy balance between these things. Being hyper-judgmental and controlling is also obviously not good. History has shown us that civilizations that lean towards extremes inevitably do not end well.

−5

iobeson t1_j8gwwce wrote

What you don't understand is what this person explained IS the healthy balance. You are the one with extreme ideas, not them. The healthy balance is letting people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. That means we aren't going to the ultra extreme and letting people fuck their furry robots in public, they have to do it behind closed doors.

26

drop_database_run t1_j8gzkl6 wrote

I think that is his point, you can be a lazy bum if you want, but if we all become lazy bums that rot in our sheets we will go extinct. So where is the balance point? Where do we put the line that maintains society? Murder bad. But we can clone someone so it's fine, just a lengthy respawn. But they begin killing people faster than we can clone them, now is this where we draw the line? Or despite the cloning/respawning do we continue to outlaw murder?

Not arguing for its legalization, I just feel like it's an argument that proves a point

−15

superzimbiote t1_j8h1m7j wrote

I don’t think people are gonna become so lazy they stop fucking

15

iobeson t1_j8h1w4b wrote

Strawmans and extreme reaches. Nice arguments. As I said before we draw the line at when one person wants to do something that affects another person in a negative way. If someone wants to do something you would deem degenerate but it's done behind closed doors, all parties consent and nobody is harmed, and you don't even know about it, what's the problem?

15

niboras t1_j8h8ms9 wrote

Sure but what if we all just individually decide to never have kids? Not degenerate,no one harmed, we all die in a generation. We dont need fancy tech for the scenario. However if we determined that tiktok was so addictive no one ever had sex we may want to regulate that. Maybe thats what OP is trying to get at but its sorta coming off as “the right people” need to decide how transhuman the creative freaky masses are allowed to get.

4

Chroderos t1_j8jv8qd wrote

Then our super-intelligent AI descendants take over the mantle of “human” civilization. Every parent wants to see their child exceed them, so this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It might even be in line with what you are arguing as AI may not be subject to all the crazy sex stuff OP is opposed to and could just go on doing meaningful stuff for the future of intelligence in the universe full time.

Alternatively, we could just grow new generations in artificial wombs if necessary.

1

Doompug0477 t1_j8j2ry3 wrote

And so what if everyone decides to not have kids? Do you advocate forced births in order to, what? There is no objective reason to keep humanity going just to keep it going.

0

niboras t1_j8j4gip wrote

No just making up an example to say we have that exact possibility right now and the system as a whole still “works.” There will always be people who opt out of the gene pool. Technology doesn’t change that. But getting into peoples private lives isnt somthing we should be doing if it doest affect the broader population in a harmful way. If social media is so addictive no one is having sex, you dont force people to procreate, you regulate social media.

2

[deleted] OP t1_j8h2ohh wrote

This tbh. It's not even about legalization but simple cultural pressure and social selection are often enough to keep people from going too far. E.g. demanding basic standards for inclusion in major projects. There is a difference between allowing extreme behavior and normalizing it/ encouraging it.

−3

FirstWorldChaika t1_j8h51d5 wrote

If I'm not affecting or hurting anyone in any way then what I do with my tech/hardware/software is none of your business.

How you're going to know what people do with their shit, surveillance?

Who's going to decide what's degenerate and what is not, you?

Are you that much of a saint that you feel you have the right to know what people do in the privacy of their room/house/minds/body and judge them? I really would like to know who you are if that's the case man, you must have an holy aura around you and everything!

27

[deleted] OP t1_j8h8vym wrote

I'm not saying that people should be stopped from doing what they want. I'm just saying that thinking about what standards you should hold yourself to is not a bad idea. Just because you can drink a ton of alcohol doesn't mean its a good idea. The problem is that with advanced technologies the things you can do but probably will have consequences you won't like are far more complex and numerous than they are now. At least trying to come up with a framework to deal with these issues is something futurists ought to do.

Let me ask you. Would you really want to spend a century pursuing nothing but hyper-depraved hedonism just because you can and would you personally respect someone who did that?

−12

KeepItASecretok t1_j8hoewf wrote

There is no meaning in life, except the meaning we make.

Whether hedonism or a life of discipline, there is no objective difference when we all turn into dirt, but at least the hedonist can say they experienced everything life had to offer.

It doesn't matter, and focusing on it is a waste of time and energy.

22

shadowrun456 t1_j8huu3z wrote

>degenerate

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

19

telorsapigoreng t1_j8hosq6 wrote

>Hopefully future societies will have
cultural institutions that help prevent or at least discourage dead end
and degenerate uses of technology.

This is where dystopian future starts.

18

SilveredFlame t1_j8j0q0o wrote

Stop. Trying. To. Police. People's. Choices. About. Their. Own. Lives.

You sound like a fascist just from your word choice, as fascists typically pick out things to label as "degenerate" or "decadent" to create a narrative of some kind of societal or cultural "decay" or "decline" that is inevitably the fault of an outgroup they're going to scapegoat to gain political power.

Let's take your bed toilet example.

Imagine in the morning not needing to take time for urination or defecation because it was all handled while you slept and your innards are impeccably maintained because of the nightly work that gets done, greatly increasing your overall health and keeping you healthy for longer.

That's a bad thing? Because you view it as nothing more than someone finding a way to be "lazy"?

How many older folks have to get up multiple times a night to urinate? Imagine all those folks being able to get a full night of restful sleep and how much healthier they will be.

Oh but that's bad because it's "lazy" to you?

What the fuck do you even care? Even if they are just being lazy, so what? Are dishwashers bad because they reduce your workload for doing dishes, enabling you to be lazy? Is mechanical transportation bad because it reduces the need for people to walk? Are pulleys bad because they reduce the work necessary to lift and move heavy loads, enabling folks to be lazy and not build the muscle required to just do it themselves?

It's a completely ridiculous and absurd premise resulting from an extremely self centered, short sighted, and fundamentally cruel worldview that deliberately creates outgroups to attack without any consideration for larger questions/impacts, or even just basic empathy.

Why do you care if someone wants to make themselves a "furry sex machine"? If it makes them happy why do you care? They're not hurting anyone.

What purpose does being so obsessed with other people's private lives serve other than to restrict personal freedom?

12

xcdesz t1_j8gsg9j wrote

Your example with the toilet bed robot being "degenerate" is a lousy one. Something like that would be a tremendous beneficial application for hospitals and nursing homes. Also it might even let some elderly people live longer in their own homes.

Unless you are worried for the jobs of those nursing staff who have to take care of that mess.

10

[deleted] OP t1_j8h3dtn wrote

I did say this. This type of thing is useful if you are injured or otherwise cannot move.

1

niboras t1_j8h991s wrote

What if I just dont like moving? Is it ok If I lay in bed and write software all day? Or trade stocks? Or play xbox? What if Im a twitch streamer and I make money off playing games for hours? Does my reason for wanting the toilet bed matter? Why does it matter? And who gets to decide. Should an able bodied person not be allowed to by a wheelchair? What about a scooter? How obese do I need to be to qualify?

6

[deleted] OP t1_j8ha91r wrote

Well, these are all legit perspectives. My point is that people should think about it. You hold yourself to personal standards all the time right now. With future technology, these things are probably going to be more complicated. I'm not arguing on whether or not stuff should be banned or not but rather on what types of standards you think people might want to hold themselves to.

0

Doompug0477 t1_j8j38s7 wrote

Actually, you are arguing that standards you disagree with are degenerate. It is a subjective emotional argument and as such not really useful.

4

xcdesz t1_j8iclur wrote

Which is actually a lot more people than you think, all over the world. Elderly care in particular is insanely expensive.. and automating some of this work is probably one of the best applications of robotics. It would be a game changer technology.

3

Kaninenlove t1_j8heyk3 wrote

Degeneracy is a dangerous word. The vast majority of what is called degenerate is not something anyone can prove to be bad. This goes both for not leaving your bed and inhancing your sex life with bodily augmentations.

10

[deleted] OP t1_j8hnvvq wrote

The question is to what degree do you do these things? There is such a thing as going too far even if too far may be different for different people.

−5

KeepItASecretok t1_j8hnvhp wrote

Why must you feel the need to be the arbiter of what is "degenerate" or "honorable" in society.

Let people do what they want if it's not hurting anyone, and don't encourage this pointless mindset that is a precursor to endless outrage.

9

sotonohito t1_j8i87a0 wrote

Yeah fuck that.

If you think people from a time where we're wrecking the environment, engaging in Fascism, genocide, and capitalism gets to say that future people who become furries are bad then you're not paying attention.

9

MuseBlessed t1_j8i6jum wrote

If somebody wants to enter the Pleasure Cube, then I say let them. I wont, most people I dont think would, but to those who want it I see no issue. Even if the entire human race did, so what? Hedonism is only a problem when its causing trouble for other people, otherwise I say have at it.

8

dnaH_notnA t1_j8ihb6q wrote

Using the term “degeneracy” unironically. Neoludditism is getting a hell of a boost from these guys.

If people aren’t causing interpersonal, societal, or economic issues, and they can afford to do it, what ground do you have to bar them from it?

7

Mutt_Species t1_j8i2tnp wrote

Are you kink shaming my furry sex machine preference!?

Also, can you describe this automatic toilet robot function in greater detail? Is it just poo and pee, or are there .... more options?

6

[deleted] OP t1_j8i4z9k wrote

Lmao I just imagined a multi-attachment robot arm that comes down from the ceiling and connects to your lower body with a seal and then just vacuums away waste and cleans you with water.

0

esotericenema t1_j8i2r98 wrote

Only Nazis use dehumanizing words like "degeneracy." You can discuss these still very relavent issues without using words like that.

5

Wonderful_Weird_2843 t1_j8ip7dn wrote

Much of humanity is already "degenerate" by this definition. In times and places without written language, some people who passed information orally believed writing was decadent and would ruin the human ability to memorize.

The industrial revolution introduced mass production of material goods and food which changed everything Unless you make homemade soup by scavenging, or planning the raising the plants and animals you put in it then use animal skin that you harvested and tanned to hold it over the fire to cook it then go to sleep under a blanket that you weave from thread you spun as soon as it gets dark.

The digital revolution changed everything again making more information increasingly available and changing the way humans store and access it.

4

Derpinator_420 t1_j8gtk6u wrote

All I can say is, the government is reactionary. Mistakes will be made.

3

MuForceShoelace t1_j8iumqt wrote

Old grandpa watching fox news VR so extremely angry the kids today are cyberdogs now just yelling and yelling at his grandkids from his toilet bed (that he can use because he's 'sick')

3

OisforOwesome t1_j8kxyq3 wrote

Who cares about degeneracy?

Fash shitheads thats who.

3

Kakujya_ t1_j8i1klf wrote

We cant even get our governments to stop shitting on us and trying to shove bugs in our mouths and you want to give them power over greenlighting inventions? Maybe just teach your kids how to be responsible

2

[deleted] OP t1_j8i575q wrote

This is what I am saying. I never said governments have to control these things.

1

coranos2 t1_j8ijy2x wrote

Who are we to determine the next course of evolution.

2

Communications23 t1_j8lkamt wrote

Basically if anyone uses the term degenracy after 1945, you keep their head in your robotic toilet and flush several times. That's where I draw the line.

2

EddgeLord666 t1_j8xgpa6 wrote

Nothing wrong with being a furry sex machine, there’s nothing degenerate about that.

2

omtmn t1_j8gasbq wrote

Anything that will stagnate positive growth for humanity is where we should draw the line. We never know what could harm or benefit us, it all depends on how we use the technology of course.

Everything is made to complement our existence, but it's up to us whether that crosses the line to degeneracy. For example, we could eventually give AI too much responsibility regarding any task requiring physical effort from us.

That plus easy access to food (deliveries, not having to cook) could easily lead us to more health issues, and 10x more obesity problems.

1

[deleted] OP t1_j8gd7c3 wrote

I would argue that not having to cook would lead to far better health. People eat unhealthy food because it is the most convenient and inexpensive option, not because it is the best option. Wealthy people these days are often in much better health because they can afford good restaurants and private chefs. If you could give yourself an optimized meal plan without having to worry about anything it would be much easier to get in shape. An automatic kitchen along with automated grocery deliveries would be a health revolution.

7

omtmn t1_j8gdhbb wrote

No yes! Agree, that's a definite outcome, that's also my point though. We just don't know how we will treat the tech, it can only become harmful if we make it so.

1

omtmn t1_j8gayb3 wrote

Trial and error with all the cool new inventions, but having to put money aside for our well-being when we go overboard with said technology is what's going to matter.

1

ebolaRETURNS t1_j8j8nw6 wrote

How are you defining degeneracy? Is this even a useful concept?

1

Thebadmamajama t1_j8l41cx wrote

In many ways we haven't really consciously decided what is at the core of being human. We've been willing to automate a lot and we're seeing limits.

We have largely used technology to ease our lives, and later automate things. We're more efficient at transportation, farming, manufacturing and communicating with each other. That has made things faster, helped us produce more, and create abundance.

Here's where we see limits.

If our communications are automated with avatars/AI, what's the purpose of f2f communication? Turns out, avoiding depression and having the ability to resolve conflict.

If our entertainment is entirely solitary due to hyper personalization, what's the point of shared events and experiences? Turns out, building real relationships and social connections

If our economy is mostly automatic, what's the purpose of jobs that produce things? Turns out, teaching, coaching, therapy and other human experiences are the things we can uniquely produce.

So to me, technologies will try to commercialize automating everything. They will hit these limits, create shitty consequences, and guardrails will arise.

But history tells us that we need to see the shitty side of things to care and establish the guardrails.

1