Chernobyls relevance to tmi of course superficial.

Removed by mod

The internet as the internet companies percieved it would look like and sold it as absolutely and completely vanished, yeah.

The internet is a funny analogue!

Because it experienced the dot com crash under almost the same sort of circumstances.

Asbestos is not harmless to people living with it, all structures need repair and modification eventually (regularly) and unknown asbestos cutting or chipping can be incredibly hazardous.

Engineers of the past had very limited design knowledge, so generally subscribed to the “I don’t know how to do this. Oh well, more good, morer bettererer.”

Need is directly in opposition to please. This makes your addition an ironic use of please, and not a polite one, which actually fits the ops observation better than the initial comment did.

I mean I would and do in fact literally blame societal and familial problems when kids are brutal, unkind, or hurt others, and similarly blame societal and familial problems for when kids are not protected from brutal, unkind, and hurtful things.

Why are you saying the things you’re saying like a gotcha? Do you not feel that society has a significant impact on the behavior of youth?

Ah of course, my mistake.

Eugenics certainly couldn’t be checks notes deciding who can have kids, and humans arent checks notes people.

Absolutely ridiculous. Imagine actually being pro genocide.

They do, in fact.

Ah, genocidal eugenics, there you are. How I didn’t miss you.

The subsidies have an ontological value in that they improve the quality of life for the child. So removing subsidies will actively perpetuate and increase the very systemic issues that many antinatalists care about in the first place. You address this too, I’m just expressing agreement that simply removing chiodcare subsidies is not ethically simple even for staunch antinatalists.

In general governments ought to be working to support the people they represent. To me it seems an antinatalist who’s goal is to reduce suffering would want to introduce things like a basic income or some such to improve the quality of life of those who do exist, not further take from those who have yet to be.

As long as you’re keeping it to your own life not trying to encourage genocide via antinatalist policy then you do you.

More likely you’re more interested in finding a way to disagree with the concept of posiwid than in doing basic research or listening.

It’s funny when y’all use “fear mongering” for people pointing out systemic issues with ai and its hype. Though it’s honestly tragic how uninterested you are in considering why AI and its hype is being criticized. Whatever makes the exploitative slave labor trained energy hungry silicon make venture capital money disappear, eh?

It’s a very common talking point now to claim technology exists independent of the culture surrounding it. It is a lie to justify morally vacant research which the, normally venture capitalist, is only concerned about the money to be made. But engineers and scientists necessarily go along with it. It’s not not your problem because we are the ones executing cultural wants, we are a part of the broader culture as well.

The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that’s what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it’s doing.

This is a systems engineering concept. And it’s inescapable.

It does not appear to me that you have even humored my request. I’m actually not even confident you read my comment given your response doesn’t actually respond to it. I hope you will.

Those people doing the majority of the lumping, and it’s not even close, are the corporations themselves. The short hand exists. Machine learning is doing fine. Intentionally misinterpreting a message to incidentally defend the actions of the corporations doing the damage you are opposed to ain’t it.

You should really try and consider what it means for technology to be a cultural feature. Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.

And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does. Why that might get brought up in discussions about wanton resource spending for venture capitalist hype.

Lmao it would be more economical to colonize the ocean floor than space. Extracting resources from space isn’t happening any time soon, no amount of musks copium will fix that.

The “serious nature” of what’s happening in space is an accelerating geopolitical posturing. Nothing any country is doing right now are the things they’d do if they seriously intended to settle space.

If the intent of course was to show off military might, ruin the the space treaty for colonialization and imperialism, and attempt brinksmamship, well they are coincidentally working down the checklist!

No. I’m just not fear mongering things I do not understand.

Neither am I. When you’re defending whatabputism, it’s best you at least try to represent the arguments of the person you’re arguing with accurately.

False equivalence is a classic. Biotechnology is not a technology, for example, it’s billions of technologies informed, designed, and implemented, by humans, technology is a cultural feature.

Technology as this thing free from the ethics of its use is tech bro ancap cope to justify technological pursuits with empty ethical value. You can think “banning human progress in any way” is evil. But that would make you wildly uncritical of your own beliefs.

Feel free to take your arguments back to e/acc, where that level of convenience induced niavety is considered rhetorically valid.