Wow...the nonsense is strong in this thread today.
I consider the following arguments fundamentally invalid and will dismiss them without further notice, regardless of the idea in whose support they're used:
(1) "Unearned power". This is a subjective argument. The standards of whether or not someone has earned something are completely arbitrary. Also this presupposes that it is bad for someone to have power unless they've done something to earn it, usually something the one who brings this argument agrees with. That idea, too, is completely arbitary and has no basis in reality. It's a figment of your imagination, a delusion, wishful thinking etc.. take your pick. You might want things to work that way, but they don't.
(2) "It's not natural evolution, therefore it's bad". There is no reason to presuppose that natural evolution will bring us anything we desire in future, except basic survival in a form we have no control over. Natural evolution is an undirected process and cares not at all for anything we might want. I see no reason why taking control of our evolution should be bad for us, except that we might make the wrong choices and become extinct. But then, that might happen anyway since there is no guarantee that natural evolution will give us the traits necessary to survive in the future. I consider it desirable to take control of our own evolution. You may disagree, but you don't have any stronger arguments for it than that you consider it undesirable.
(3) "It's not our technology, therefore it's bad". I don't know why this nonsense continues to appear in these debates. Technology exchange, technology theft, technology gifts have happened throughout human history, and though sometimes cultures may have been wiped out by using something in the wrong way, as a rule the receiving culture gained by it rather than lost. I'd bet any amount of money that those who bring forward this argument would sing a different song if the source was something less viscerally repulsive than the Reapers. The only thing I would consider bad is complacency in trying to understand what you're using. And yes, technologies can be dangerous and should be evaluated for undesirable side effects, but their source is irrelevant.
(4) "Uplifting another species is bad". First, you cannot conclude this from one example. Second, you have no evidence that it was bad for the krogan (or for the galaxy) since you do not know what would've happened had they not been uplifted.
(5) "The easy way is less desirable than the hard way". Complete bullsh*t. So.......plowing a field by hand has more merit than using a machine? What utter nonsense is this? The history of technology is the history of humanity trying to make things easier. In any real sense, it is desirable to get things done in an easier way because that frees up resources for other things you might want to do. The idea that this is bad is a result of the Protestant work ethic (and I think there's an equivalent in Confucianism). There is no merit in hard work if the same work can be done with less effort. You might learn skills you otherwise wouldn't, yes, but that benefit vanishes once you've learned it, and even then it's only worth it if those skills are useful enough. I don't need to learn to plow by hand because I'll never need that skill, unless civilization breaks down completely.
There are a few more nonsensical arguments like this which frequently pop up. I really wish people would stop to think about them before parroting them into a debate. It's as if they're indoctrinated....
Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 octobre 2013 - 05:43 .
Retour en haut
