> All technological change is a trade-off. For every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage.
This, to me, reads as one of those statements that sounds wise and correct but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Going from digging with your hands to using a shovel doesn't have a negative trade off. Going from carrying things on your back to using a wheeled cart doesn't have a corresponding disadvantage.
You can find very myopic cases where they're not improvements (e.g. digging for fragile objects is better done with hands), but that doesn't disprove the general improvement, and it is far from a corresponding disadvantage equal to the new advantage.
> Doesn't it? What if those "things" are weapons that you are carrying to battle?
I'm not sure what your point is.
Are you suggesting that some things are better kept close at hand and not on a cart? The invention of the cart does not remove the ability to carry things.
Do you mean to make an appeal to the evils of war? If so, the morality of a use case doesn't have much to do with the efficacy of a technology, though I think you have a point of discussion there. War is hardly always evil, but maybe you could argue that adding efficiency to the ability to wage unjust war is a disadvantage. But, again, you have to get very abstract to make that argument.
You denied a claim that "every new technology benefits some and harms others" by doubting that invention of a cart could cause harm. I'm suggesting a way that it could.
> the morality of a use case doesn't have much to do with the efficacy of a technology
I agree, but I believe it was morality that was under discussion, not efficacy.
> doubting that invention of a cart could cause harm
I think this is where we missed each other. I was trying to address "there is always a corresponding disadvantage", and I think mentally I was interpreting this as "an approximately proportionate downside or externality".
I don't disagree at all that nearly any technological improvement can cause harm.
I'll admit it does sound like a very abstract statement.
When I think of technology it's not a singular device/product/creation. It's wider in scope, kinda like a whole field. This is probably because like you pointed out you can find one thing that is just good, like a shovel. But a shovel is a mechanical tool and in the broader scheme of things.
An example I can think of is ABS, anti-lock break system. It prevents car wheels from locking under breaking and skidding, giving the driver more control while breaking. How could this be bad? ABS is a fix to a problem that was created by another technology, the car. The car dictated a lot of society as we know it today. Roads had to be built, rules of travel put in place, you could now live far from work. These might sound good to us now, but in reality they are trade-offs.
This, to me, reads as one of those statements that sounds wise and correct but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Going from digging with your hands to using a shovel doesn't have a negative trade off. Going from carrying things on your back to using a wheeled cart doesn't have a corresponding disadvantage.
You can find very myopic cases where they're not improvements (e.g. digging for fragile objects is better done with hands), but that doesn't disprove the general improvement, and it is far from a corresponding disadvantage equal to the new advantage.