Sorry, but this is empty rhetoric and a failure to engage with the post on the object level. How did the printing press jeopardise the reproduction of people in society? And not indirectly, through a long causal chain (such as, without the printing press, we wouldn’t have the computer, without the computer we wouldn’t have the internet, without the internet we wouldn’t have online dating and porn and AI partners, etc.), but directly? Whereas AI partners will reduce the total fertility rate directly.
The implication of your comment is that technology couldn’t be “bad” (for people, society, or any other subject), which is absurd. Technology is not ethics-neutral and could be “bad”.
Sorry, but this is empty rhetoric and a failure to engage with the post on the object level. How did the printing press jeopardise the reproduction of people in society? And not indirectly, through a long causal chain (such as, without the printing press, we wouldn’t have the computer, without the computer we wouldn’t have the internet, without the internet we wouldn’t have online dating and porn and AI partners, etc.), but directly? Whereas AI partners will reduce the total fertility rate directly.
The implication of your comment is that technology couldn’t be “bad” (for people, society, or any other subject), which is absurd. Technology is not ethics-neutral and could be “bad”.