[vemom]

This writer doesn't look obnoxious to me they make good points. Of course they make good points only for their use case. I'd rather keep computers as a thing and have all the medical advances, plane safety, science advances we have seen. I also couldn't do what I first did on a computer with a pencil: program an automaton. But it is worth reading other points of view and seeing their side.

[II2II]

I am sympathetic with his message today, when I would have been dismissive of it in 1987. I also realize that I shouldn't have been dismissive of it in 1987. Even though the industry of today is far more damaging than it was then, it is only because there were so many benefits yet-to-reap. The industry itself was just as manipulative and just as greedy. While most of the old empires have fallen, new ones have taken their place.

That said, I think his tone was a mistake. It is not that technology is inherently good or bad. The fault is in how we fail to examine the role it should play. Each of the nine criteria that he lays out could have been met, but as individuals and society we have decided upon a different path.

[casey2]

His points flat suck and they aren't well thought out at all.

Right of the bat "the new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces" On what basis is this even defensible? Even if you just follow this single rule we'd all still be hunter-gatherers

And the last one his mask slips "It should not replace...anything...". Why privilege what already exists over what doesn't? It had it's time.