undefined | Better HN

0 pointseropple2y ago0 comments

> I think that captures some of the contradiction in your claims. Yes, cities could be terrible places to live and work. Yet people have moved to them throughout recent history because the alternative is worse.

I think this is a misreading. People who had options didn't urbanize until they had to. When a family had too many sons to split and or when Roman aristocrats or English magnates pushed people off their land or when a bad climate situation made farming impractical, people moved--but it's a very, very recent historical development to urbanize (en masse) when other choices exist.

Yes, the alternatives have been worse and so industrial urbanization became more appealing than starving. Who the hell made them worse and whose progenitors now control the capital needed to destroy ever more labor?

(Don't take not addressing the rest as dismissal--your other points are all within a coherent universe, they're just techno-optimism that I have no reason to share so I have nothing to say to them.)

0 comments

richk4492y ago

Based on this and other posts, I think you are saying not that technological progress is bad, but that we as a society fail to take full advantage of the opportunity that could come from the advances.

And of course you are right. But that’s a societal problem, not a technology problem. I would call if societal-optimism to hope that human nature will go away and collective action problems will suddenly disappear, and all boats will be lifted equally.

eroppleOP2y ago

Nobody is asking for all boats to be lifted equally.

I’m saying we have a fundamental human responsibility not to burn them for fucking funsies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse