I personally don't find someone saying "oh you know what was meant" to be a convincing argument, others may feel differently. The post made a massively overreaching claim about the universal positivity of technological development. If they meant "consumer goods should be adopted as fast as possible" then say that instead, especially if you're trying to build a life-philosophy on it. My core point is that "technological development" is an enormous concept, entailing all sorts of things. To say "more technology means more access to technology" paints over all sorts of dynamics which run counter or orthogonal to that. I'm merely pointing out one such example, there are many more if you think about it for a minute. Feel free to stay focused on the forest, but don't be surprised if you wind up unable to differentiate between a deciduous and an evergreen.
> You're letting the political mask slip a bit with the inclusion of the Whig comment, by the way :)
There's no mask, I wear my political convictions quite openly :)
If you're going to talk accurately and honestly about how technology changes the world, you need to be specific about which technologies you're referencing. We have a sort of informally agreed upon shorthand that when we discuss technology we are only talking about "the good ones."
They're saying (I think) that we need to be more rigorous than that. You can't say GPS has made the world better while ignoring cruise missiles. You can't say wikipedia makes the world better while ignoring the role of the internet in the rohingya genocides etc.
If you're using past technologies to predict the role of future ones, your thesis has to justify or at least account for the negative consequences as well.
Perfect, I literally could not have said this better myself.
There were more frequent genocides before the Internet than after. It was standard practice for conflicts in the ancient world: burn the cities, execute all the men, and take the women and children as slaves.
You might have a valid point about technology in general, but I don't think your specific examples support that point.
Most people are able to understand what is broadly meant by "technological development". It normally means stuff like camera phones and internet access and hearing aids, you're the first I've read whose mind immediately jumps to weapons of destruction. If someone noted that they'd been impressed with the technological progress of the 2000s, I wouldn't personally feel the need to smugly clarify that they don't have access to missiles, so their point is misguided. Perhaps their comment would have been clearer to folks like you with the addition of more qualifications and context to describe _exactly what_ kinds of progress is being talked about, but personally I found it very clear.
You're letting the political mask slip a bit with the inclusion of the Whig comment, by the way :)