A problem in this reasoning is that human life isn't "necessary". Therefore all technological progress is driven by "desire", sticking to the formulation offered. In some cases, from a particular perspective, progress is good in others bad or indifferent. The problem is that, from a left perspective, investment (including intellectual) tends to be in the wrong direction. But in many cases we clearly need vastly more innovation (in responsibly meeting energy demands, e.g.).
Carrol Cox Wrote:
>
> One of the horrors of capitalism, both in itself and as source of other
> evils, is the rapid pace of innocation. This is one of the theoretical
> weaknesses of "progressive" as opposed to serious socialist, a really
> naive and even destructive belief that change is inherently a virtue,
> while it is more often at best harmless and all too often destructive.
> Humanity needs a rest of constant change if it is to survive.
>
> We _have_ to destroy capitalism root and branch for the same reason,
> survival. Commodity production must cease. But on the whole, necessity
> is the only rational reason for change. Merely desirable change which is
> not necessary should come slowly.
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place – Learn more! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/137984870/direct/01/