Another factor here is that societies tend to change as technology does and creates new options. So that forms another divide; do you encourage and embrace that kind of change, and call it “progress”, or do you fight to keep it from happening.
Just to give one example, when the birth control pill and other technology makes new types of social behavior practical that were unsafe before. If anything, when something like that happens, progressives try to let things develop naturally, while conservatives fight to keep their “farm” the same by destroying things they consider “weeds”.
when the birth control pill and other technology makes new types of social behavior practical … progressives try to let things develop naturally
Not sure if people who object against sexbots (arguing specifically that they would make women more objectified) are counted as “progressives”, because that would be an obvious example against letting things develop naturally when technology makes new types of behavior practical. Similarly, some people who identify as progressives argue against pornography, including cartoons and computer models. -- Maybe this is not a majority opinion among progressives, but still seems like a quite visible one.
I imagine that in some parallel universe, conservatives have legislated mandatory paternity testing for all newborns, and are congratulating themselves for embracing new technology and letting things develop naturally. (The point is, anyone would support things developing naturally in the direction they agree with.)
That’s a fair example. I think that in most circles on the left that I’ve seen, including most feminists, the byword these days is being “sex-positive” and generally more accepting of letting people do what they want if they’re not hurting anyone else. But I do still see examples of the opposite as well, especally about things like pornography and “sex-bots”.
(The point is, anyone would support things developing naturally in the direction they agree with.)
Yeah, I agree. I think by it’s nature conservatives tend to be more opposed to change in general so usually allowing society to evolve in response to technological change is usually more supported by progressives who often see that kind of change as positive and as “progress”, but that’s just a generalization, it certainly can go either way.
I think the problem here is that you are trying to argue for a side: the progressives are trying to “to let things develop naturally,” and so are behaving in a better way than the conservatives who are trying to “destroy” things.
The truth is this: technology does create new options, as well as taking away some options for some [e.g. many people no longer have a realistic option to “never use a computer”]. This means that technological change drives moral and cultural change.
And yes there tend to be two attitudes both to the technologies and to the behaviors that they allow or prevent. But it is just false that one of those attitudes is right and the other wrong. Rather, in some cases those behaviors are beneficial, and in others they are not. Very often, it will not be clear at first whether the results of the new behavior will be good overall, and only later people figure out that they need still another technology, or they still need to fix remaining problems, or whatever.
I think the problem here is that you are trying to argue for a side: the progressives are trying to “to let things develop naturally,” and so are behaving in a better way than the conservatives who are trying to “destroy” things.
Not exactly. I am giving as a counterexample a class of situations where conservatives try to shape society while progressives are trying to let “nature take it’s course”.
I also didn’t put any value judgement in, at least not intentionally. I described it as “destroying weeds”, which is not a negitive thing. I would say that both sides are trying to “destroy weeds” and shape society they just have a different idea what those weeds are.
But it is just false that one of those attitudes is right and the other wrong.
I did not say there was.
I do think that in the majority of cases new technology overall makes our lives better, and it’s usually better to embrace the new possibilities first and then error-correct later to eliminate uses where it turns out the new technology was not as helpful as it appeared; usually the only way to find that out is to try it, and attempts to restrict it beforehand usually targets the wrong problems anyway. But that’s an object-level question that depends on the technology in question, not a universal truth.
Another factor here is that societies tend to change as technology does and creates new options. So that forms another divide; do you encourage and embrace that kind of change, and call it “progress”, or do you fight to keep it from happening.
Just to give one example, when the birth control pill and other technology makes new types of social behavior practical that were unsafe before. If anything, when something like that happens, progressives try to let things develop naturally, while conservatives fight to keep their “farm” the same by destroying things they consider “weeds”.
Not sure if people who object against sexbots (arguing specifically that they would make women more objectified) are counted as “progressives”, because that would be an obvious example against letting things develop naturally when technology makes new types of behavior practical. Similarly, some people who identify as progressives argue against pornography, including cartoons and computer models. -- Maybe this is not a majority opinion among progressives, but still seems like a quite visible one.
I imagine that in some parallel universe, conservatives have legislated mandatory paternity testing for all newborns, and are congratulating themselves for embracing new technology and letting things develop naturally. (The point is, anyone would support things developing naturally in the direction they agree with.)
That’s a fair example. I think that in most circles on the left that I’ve seen, including most feminists, the byword these days is being “sex-positive” and generally more accepting of letting people do what they want if they’re not hurting anyone else. But I do still see examples of the opposite as well, especally about things like pornography and “sex-bots”.
Yeah, I agree. I think by it’s nature conservatives tend to be more opposed to change in general so usually allowing society to evolve in response to technological change is usually more supported by progressives who often see that kind of change as positive and as “progress”, but that’s just a generalization, it certainly can go either way.
I think the problem here is that you are trying to argue for a side: the progressives are trying to “to let things develop naturally,” and so are behaving in a better way than the conservatives who are trying to “destroy” things.
The truth is this: technology does create new options, as well as taking away some options for some [e.g. many people no longer have a realistic option to “never use a computer”]. This means that technological change drives moral and cultural change.
And yes there tend to be two attitudes both to the technologies and to the behaviors that they allow or prevent. But it is just false that one of those attitudes is right and the other wrong. Rather, in some cases those behaviors are beneficial, and in others they are not. Very often, it will not be clear at first whether the results of the new behavior will be good overall, and only later people figure out that they need still another technology, or they still need to fix remaining problems, or whatever.
Not exactly. I am giving as a counterexample a class of situations where conservatives try to shape society while progressives are trying to let “nature take it’s course”.
I also didn’t put any value judgement in, at least not intentionally. I described it as “destroying weeds”, which is not a negitive thing. I would say that both sides are trying to “destroy weeds” and shape society they just have a different idea what those weeds are.
I did not say there was.
I do think that in the majority of cases new technology overall makes our lives better, and it’s usually better to embrace the new possibilities first and then error-correct later to eliminate uses where it turns out the new technology was not as helpful as it appeared; usually the only way to find that out is to try it, and attempts to restrict it beforehand usually targets the wrong problems anyway. But that’s an object-level question that depends on the technology in question, not a universal truth.