Sure that might be true. Seems like just a symptom of success tho. At some point you start to run out of lives to save. For example, today more people die of obesity than starvation. So agricultural advancements just will not save as many lives as 50 years ago cuz there are not as many starving people that need saving.

If a society with horrible living conditions like most of the world in the 1900s gets tech, the period where most lives are saved will eventually pass as that tech succeeds in improving living conditions. If we were constantly saving millions or billions of lives with new tech, we have a problem. Where are all these extra people in peril coming from?

Idk seems like your conclusion that technology has progressed a lot previously is based on a few centuries of history. While the examples of technology not progressing as much by comparison youve given are from like the last 10 years. So your examples show that tech has advanced more in the last few centuries than in the last 10 years or so.

Don't you see the problem there? Question is, has technology progressed any slower in the last 10 years than it did let's say in 1970-1980? I don't think so. I'd say it's the opposite.

Idk about this event specifically, but on a general tangent: isn't the SK government extremely plutocratic? There are democratic elements, but isn't it effectively a democracy mixed with a corporate oligarchy with a few corporations having a lot of influence? My source is just a couple of YouTube videos I've watched such as from economics explained so I'm not sure

Sorry, my bad. I meant right, should have clarified

The author seems to be assuming a perfect democracy where all politicians are good willed angles enacting policies solely on the will of the people.

I believe it was usually brought by the wearer. Armoured knights were usually members of the aristocracy who unlike a peasant had the time, connections and money to become a knight.

Although I guess there's nothing stoping a noble family from giving armour and equipment to a particularly skilled lower class warrior. Point being it was all very personal and private. The central government rarely provided it

I agree they haven't provided any proof of their opinion but they did frame it as just their opinion.

Regardless, I wanna point out what they say is still possible. Unless you can rule this out (aka prove it wrong), you can't say the hard problem of consiousness is neccasrily a problem

It's meaningless cuz it doesn't actually state a negative. It says 2 things basically, gray matter being reduced and changes in your brain associated with phone use.

The gray matter being reduced, I admit that sounds bad, but unless I know what negative affects that has if any, why would I be worried? It does not neccasrily mean it's bad.

The changes is even more vague. How's that neccassirily bad?

>Qatari migrant deaths are not necessarily related to World Cup stadium construction, however the average has increased since the start of construction in 2014

Doesn't necessarily mean anything as it's not per 100k or something like that. That could simply mean more migrant workers moved to Qatar

Ya true. It was truly shocking to hear migrant workers are not immortal. What do you think the mere existence of worker deaths show?

You'd have to show they were higher than non migrant workers or something to make any argument

Actual evidence says otherwise.

>so like those in the 50s who thought their technological boom would give them their dreamed of Jetsons world?

Yes actually, just without the exaggeration. If someone in the 50s thought the technology boom would lead to the best time in human history in terms of lifespans, quality of life, peace, food security, medicine and much more, they were right.

About the world running out of resources, ya that does make me a bit pessimistic. Cuz hypothetically you would expect the earth to run out of resources at some point. I'm just not sure how close this is cuz most important reosurces like food production per capita is at its highest in history. But tbh I don't know much about other stuff.

But I would guess we would have to start getting resources off earth cuz id assume they would get scarce at some point if not soon.

Regardless of automation, nothing has ever been divided equally so that's too high a bar. Still, on a macro scale and time you'd expect robots would be a benefit since we are producing more goods for cheaper.

But in the short term it might not be cuz society may need time to adjust. Currently most people work and get paid for their work directly. Those who don't work, suffer. This is entirely different to how people would get paid in a mostly automated society. Such a society unlike any other in human history would not be doing most of its own work. Meaning if they benefit from this work they would do so for doing nothing to contribute to it. The same people who did not work and suffered for it, would now be the norm and have to benefit for doing nothing to contribute to their benefits. That's a massive shift.

I my head while society evolves to this new reality we will have a short time period where non workers being the norm will be combined with the traditional system of such people being punished. So you end up with a short time period where the average person is suffering cuz of automation