alt Hacker NewsI’m not arguing that human labor shouldn’t be romanticized. I’m arguing that computer labor shouldn’t be romanticized MORE than the agrarian variety. Of course labor should be romanticized. Every single thing we have to show as a species is the result of labor.
And us being able to create guardrails which sometimes work if you’re caught is not the same as a force of nature. There are no good or bad outcomes in nature, there are only consequences. This is absolutely not true in civilization.
We have nearly zero guardrails to prevent the damage. Did… you see Nepal? You realize this is a direct result of us either not having, or easily ignoring those guardrails?
As it turns out, starving because you chose to overeat is not going to have the same intensity as a law requiring you to please choose to throw back a fish which is too small (ignore the story about third world countries doing bomb fishing).
Do you have an actual response to the points I made, or are you going to continue appealing to emotion instead? Yes the flooding in Nepal is bad, terrible even. Yes externalities exist. Yes things could be better. That does not mean, and you have not proven, that there are "nearly zero guardrails" or that "guardrails do not exist". And in fact, you actually seem to be arguing they don't exist but are ignored at the same time? How does that follow?