> No, I'm not saying that technology is evil in and
> of itself. Many of us here will agree that certain
> technologies are inherently evil. Like the atomic bomb.
Just wondering, what do you think of this argument in favor of the atomic bomb? At the start of this century the "civilized" world was enduring a world war in which tens of millions of people were slaughtered about once every generation, as those glory-hog leaders could safely relax in wood-paneled rooms, sipping port and smoking cigars; but after Szilard, Oppenheimer and Fuchs, the glorious leaders would no longer be the last to die in the wars they cooked up but the very first. Confronted with their own quick death on the new front lines, suddenly these leaders were no more eager "to turn as swimmers into cleanness leaping" than the average combat-experienced PFC had ever been. Alfred Nobel had been right after all, just his dynamite wasn't quite explosive enough. It's been fifty-eight years since the last world war, thus thanks to those technologists the world missed out on WW III and IV. Alas the scheme of world war prevention kind of fell apart when one of the two counterpoised "superpowers" collapsed. (btw can't stand that word "superpower," sounds so dumb, like Kor-El's comicbook knack for X-ray vision - on the other hand I like the French parody of the word, "hyperpower," i.e. power which is mostly hype.) Well, it's an idea, anyway, suppoose you all tell me what's wrong with it.
Meanwhile "bodhisattva," won't you take me by the hand?, writes:
> For your argument to be valid, you would have to show me
> a technology (as apart from an application) that has no
> positive use.
You bet, TV.
Yours WD "cranky" K - WKiernan at ij.net