• MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    This has happened with every generation when a new technology changes our environment, and our way of defending ourselves is to reject it or exaggerate its flaws.

    Because throughout history, many tools have existed, but over time they have fallen into disuse because too many people and/or there is a faster method that people use. But you can use that old tool.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      This has also happened 100 times correctly to reject actually bad new technologies for every time it has been applied to the wrong technology that turned out to be actually useful.

      • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Are you referring to projects that conceptualize something, but in the end it doesn’t come to fruition because it’s not possible due to lack of funding, lack of interest, it’s impossible, or there’s no technology required to complete it?

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          I am referring to technological “innovations” that never made it because while they sounded good as an idea they turned out to be bad/useless in practice and also those that someone thought of in a “wouldn’t it be great if we could do this” way but never really got a working implementation.

          Flying cars might be a good, high profile example for the latter category. The former obviously has fewer famous examples because bad ideas that sound good at first are so abundant.