Like so many people you get fixated on one threat, and because you feel that can be dismissed you dismiss all threats, even ones that are fairly well-documented like artificial pandemics. To say nothing of all the threats we're unaware of. You say we'll have a long line of other balls that will warn us, but that didn't happen with social…
Like so many people you get fixated on one threat, and because you feel that can be dismissed you dismiss all threats, even ones that are fairly well-documented like artificial pandemics. To say nothing of all the threats we're unaware of. You say we'll have a long line of other balls that will warn us, but that didn't happen with social media, which has turned into (by some accounts) a pretty dark ball. If we didn't get any warning there, why should be get warning for pure black balls? What physical principle distinguishes the two?
This seems a bit stretched, like someone complaining in 1960 that rock and roll was ruining the kids. I don't think there's any evidence social media is anything like an extinction level innovation and it would actually be pretty hard to argue it's even a net negative.
In essence you'd have to argue against the Internet because, let's face it, the Internet is basically social media. Whether you're talking about self made blogs from the 1990's or AOL chatrooms, it's all variations of the same thing. Could you imagine an alternative history where the internet just never really happened much?
The one place that did that was HBO's Watchman series which ended up in a type of retro futurism (electric cars, easy space probes but no cell phones yet some people had pagers). Different? Yes but not clearly better.
Like so many people you get fixated on one threat, and because you feel that can be dismissed you dismiss all threats, even ones that are fairly well-documented like artificial pandemics. To say nothing of all the threats we're unaware of. You say we'll have a long line of other balls that will warn us, but that didn't happen with social media, which has turned into (by some accounts) a pretty dark ball. If we didn't get any warning there, why should be get warning for pure black balls? What physical principle distinguishes the two?
This seems a bit stretched, like someone complaining in 1960 that rock and roll was ruining the kids. I don't think there's any evidence social media is anything like an extinction level innovation and it would actually be pretty hard to argue it's even a net negative.
In essence you'd have to argue against the Internet because, let's face it, the Internet is basically social media. Whether you're talking about self made blogs from the 1990's or AOL chatrooms, it's all variations of the same thing. Could you imagine an alternative history where the internet just never really happened much?
The one place that did that was HBO's Watchman series which ended up in a type of retro futurism (electric cars, easy space probes but no cell phones yet some people had pagers). Different? Yes but not clearly better.