egafd.com

I take your point about technological advances, but it seems so
often to be a double-edged sword.
We get the microwave; we also get Cruise missiles.
That said, knowledge is- or ought to be- morally neutral.

It seems so often a case of 'one step forwards,...'.

In the perceptive words of Sam Goldwyn or maybe it was Mark Twain, 'Its always difficult to make predictions, especially about the future'.

True, regarding technology. It's up to us in how we use it.

I don't think all advancement over the last few hundred years has been technological though, jj. What about morality and ethics? Slavery isn't accepted these days, racism is -in parts- illegal as is sexual discrimination; the common man's right to vote, then the woman's; the abolishment of child workshops and the establishment of free education, regardless of class; crimes where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty and everyone's right to a fair trial; the regulations surrounding animal cruelty and how slaughterhouses/farmers kill/keep/transport livestock around....the list goes on.

Remember, it wasn't that long ago where you could rape and beat your wife anytime you wanted and it was looked upon, by law, as a 'domestic'. People even later than that were allowed to drink and drive, kill someone and it be seen as an accident. Even the latest laws surrounding smoking in public places are a moral step forward; the beginning of an acceptance that it's morally wrong to force non-smokers to breath in poisoned air just because some have a bad habit they can't/won't give up. All of the progress I've stated makes Britain a better place to live and none are really technological advances.

The future, of course, may -I hope- culminate in a better realisation that our way of life needs to change, and how waste food, cars and massive energy consumption affects others around the globe (and by 'others' I don't just mean people, but wildlife too). The future, though, isn't as easy to predict as some on here seem to think.

What I will say is that if we take trends over the last 4-500 years and assume that those trends will continue, then the quality of life in Britain, 50 years hence, will be better than it is now. Every generation since Soctrates worried about the morals of the young and how the world was coming to an end; up to now all those generations couldn't have been further from the reality if they had purposely tried. !happy!

Just an edit in reference to cruise missiles:

Billions of dollars went into their development and one of the main motives behind the technology was precision so as to minimise civilian casualties. How much it was more to do with tactical/combat effectiveness is open to debate but what we do know is that when these missiles were being first used in a real war, where targets were in and around civilian life (Baghdad in 1990) then much was made about how accurate they were, resulting in less civilian death than previous wars.

Even if the political/military types didn't give a hoot about how the war was won, they knew that in order for the war to be acceptable to voters they had to be seen to be moral. That in itself is a step forward because 70 years earlier they could have got away with carpet-bombing the place.

I don't see cruise missiles as a bad thing in that regard; I see bombs as a bad thing. We already had bombs, though, and so my view is that I'd rather have accurate missiles compared to inaccurate bombs if doing so minimises innocent deaths.

I suppose my point is that morality itself can be a selective pressure in the evolution of technology, even in technologies dealing with killing things. How ironic, eh?

Well, all those immigrants who've come over this past 20 years hasn't affected the murder rate.

disagree watch crimewatch the wanted file is full of them

Crimewatch isn't an accurate demographic about crime, Steve. Just (I think) certain tricky cases that the police are appealing to the public for information.

I live in [faint] hope that the definite marginal improvements will
eventually be come a landslide.

There was also the concern about the 'disconnect' between pilots
and their bombing, which only became apparent during Harris'
WWII excursions.
It was felt that if they could feel they were targeting only enemy
combatants their effectiveness would be enhanced.

Not in the UK, no......