I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you suggesting that some things are better kept close at hand and not on a cart? The invention of the cart does not remove the ability to carry things.

Do you mean to make an appeal to the evils of war? If so, the morality of a use case doesn't have much to do with the efficacy of a technology, though I think you have a point of discussion there. War is hardly always evil, but maybe you could argue that adding efficiency to the ability to wage unjust war is a disadvantage. But, again, you have to get very abstract to make that argument.

You denied a claim that "every new technology benefits some and harms others" by doubting that invention of a cart could cause harm. I'm suggesting a way that it could.

> the morality of a use case doesn't have much to do with the efficacy of a technology

I agree, but I believe it was morality that was under discussion, not efficacy.

I think this is where we missed each other. I was trying to address "there is always a corresponding disadvantage", and I think mentally I was interpreting this as "an approximately proportionate downside or externality".

I don't disagree at all that nearly any technological improvement can cause harm.