You explained very thoroughly the same philosophical point that I passionately and firmly stand for.
This distinctive framing of "technology" vs "not" such, and more notably the also distinctive framing between "techno-enthusiasts" and the others - that place the first into a disappointing place of being viewed as little more than an isolated awkward with little touch with "ordinary people's/ordinary world experiences" I would say - that dominates our social discourses are witnesses of the one part that won the political and cultural war: the Luddites themselves, as well as the wide branch of Humanities that, as Charles P. Snow denounced in his remarkable and still highly relevant today 1950's "The Two Cultures", have remained orphans of the enormous boosts of science and technological breakthroughs and so remained keeping outside any grasping of them, be their tremendous benefits or their possible risks and eventual dangers in some cases, and judging them with fear, dismay, and often outright despise (instead of trying of acquainting with them in order to properly drive them for the sake of getting the best benefits for the most people possible and reduce the risks as much as possible), and that still keep its grip on public discourses in society by filling the void scientists had left for so much regarding relationship with the nonspecialized public due to its hegemony on ruling classes, politicians, public education systems as well as journalists and intellectuals.
Basically, the scientific breakthroughs has gone so far in so little time whilst dominant social culture has recoiled to backward mentality, and the grip it keeps is strangling and intoxicating our society, by fitting public discourses into these fallacious dichotomies that elsewhere would make little if not at all sense.
You are precious, Zion. How I wish that so much youths and activists would converge to the same points you are pointing out here, for in such dominant mindset what would make the difference is breaking this mold with this out of the box thinking, and push back the tendencies that had led to this into the last decades especially.
But there are sociopaths who are anti-breathing. They control many of the Earth's most powerful institutions, and they are always seeking even more control. Maybe we just say, "pro-life" and be done with it?
Well put. I will say that I'm "pro-nuclear" because in the current cultural context it does say something meaningful. If I have a chance, I will always follow up by explaining that I mean that nuclear is an abundant energy source that CAN be highly cost-competitive and safe. I do not favor using nuclear at any cost. (We must fix the enormous and irrational regulatory burden first before pushing a lot of nuclear.) So, while I agree with your overall point, in specific contexts being pro-nuclear is fairly clear and meaningful.
This seems to me difference from saying you are "pro-sun". Given our current context, that statement is meaningless and unhelpful. Does it mean you favor keeping the sun rather than trying to blow it up. That you think *any* exposure to the sun is good? Of course not. But saying that you are pro-nuclear conveys much more.
You explained very thoroughly the same philosophical point that I passionately and firmly stand for.
This distinctive framing of "technology" vs "not" such, and more notably the also distinctive framing between "techno-enthusiasts" and the others - that place the first into a disappointing place of being viewed as little more than an isolated awkward with little touch with "ordinary people's/ordinary world experiences" I would say - that dominates our social discourses are witnesses of the one part that won the political and cultural war: the Luddites themselves, as well as the wide branch of Humanities that, as Charles P. Snow denounced in his remarkable and still highly relevant today 1950's "The Two Cultures", have remained orphans of the enormous boosts of science and technological breakthroughs and so remained keeping outside any grasping of them, be their tremendous benefits or their possible risks and eventual dangers in some cases, and judging them with fear, dismay, and often outright despise (instead of trying of acquainting with them in order to properly drive them for the sake of getting the best benefits for the most people possible and reduce the risks as much as possible), and that still keep its grip on public discourses in society by filling the void scientists had left for so much regarding relationship with the nonspecialized public due to its hegemony on ruling classes, politicians, public education systems as well as journalists and intellectuals.
Basically, the scientific breakthroughs has gone so far in so little time whilst dominant social culture has recoiled to backward mentality, and the grip it keeps is strangling and intoxicating our society, by fitting public discourses into these fallacious dichotomies that elsewhere would make little if not at all sense.
You are precious, Zion. How I wish that so much youths and activists would converge to the same points you are pointing out here, for in such dominant mindset what would make the difference is breaking this mold with this out of the box thinking, and push back the tendencies that had led to this into the last decades especially.
Precious Zion, Was it not David MacKay who called himself "pro-arithmetic"?
But there are sociopaths who are anti-breathing. They control many of the Earth's most powerful institutions, and they are always seeking even more control. Maybe we just say, "pro-life" and be done with it?
Well put. I will say that I'm "pro-nuclear" because in the current cultural context it does say something meaningful. If I have a chance, I will always follow up by explaining that I mean that nuclear is an abundant energy source that CAN be highly cost-competitive and safe. I do not favor using nuclear at any cost. (We must fix the enormous and irrational regulatory burden first before pushing a lot of nuclear.) So, while I agree with your overall point, in specific contexts being pro-nuclear is fairly clear and meaningful.
This seems to me difference from saying you are "pro-sun". Given our current context, that statement is meaningless and unhelpful. Does it mean you favor keeping the sun rather than trying to blow it up. That you think *any* exposure to the sun is good? Of course not. But saying that you are pro-nuclear conveys much more.