Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j9g5ti5 wrote

1

Borrowedshorts t1_j9ifeym wrote

It has. It has also caused irreparable harm. It has changed societies and social conventions and behaviors. In the past, technological change was observable over a generational time period. That generational time scale of major technical change is now being condensed to a period of less than a year. People had time to adjust in the past, and yet segments of society still found it hard to. People won't have that luxury anymore, as the pace of change will reorganize the social fabric faster than we can conceive.

1

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j9ih27y wrote

Great! There are many people suffering who could benefit greatly, i’m sure the poor orphan boy with untreatable cancer will have greater odds than not every time increment exponential progress is made.

1

Borrowedshorts t1_j9ilkr0 wrote

Something possibly being better for 1% of the population does not make up for the suffering of 99%.

1

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j9imfm8 wrote

right, only 1% of the us population has access to personal computers

1

Borrowedshorts t1_j9k6dmq wrote

Not what we were even talking about dude. Especially when you shifted the conversationto begin with... We were talking about the 1% of people who theoretically could have their life extended, but still would require a substantial series of effects for that to occur. Is that worth the suffering of the other 99% of people?

1