this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
20 points (91.7% liked)

Solarpunk technology

4248 readers
35 users here now

Technology for a Solar-Punk future.

Airships and hydroponic farms...

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Cory misrepresents the arguments (well basically hides them) in order to not have to face any material criticism and turns them into “you just don’t like these people” which frames the criticism as emotional and not rational.

Well, isn't it? IMO some of the most popular arguments against generative AI are founded in misinformation and/or don't have strong rational defenses, even though there are better arguments further down the list, but that doesn't stop anyone because in the court of public opinion rhetoric and emotion trumps rational argument. This becomes really obvious when you try to publicly confront the failings of these arguments, in most cases the discussion will devolve into personal attacks immediately as people interpret argument as support of the enemy. If Cory Doctorow is being a little weaselly and failing to lay out an ethical position with full forthrightness, that's probably because doing so is a recipe for making everyone angry at you, regardless of your views, and since he's a public figure attempting to persuade people who mostly agree with him anyway and aren't trying to think too hard it would be a stupid choice.

It would be great if we had a culture where it was safe to lay out and consider ethical ideas on their merits without holding anything back, but we just don't, and it's unfair to demand that from people who have to answer to the public because every single one of them would get crushed if they actually did it.

[–] signaleleven@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 hours ago

I am often fatigued by Cassandras. They are right, of course, but its their curse. They are EXHAUSTING. Cory Doctorow is a Cassandra that often offers perspectives to show the way out (or A way out) of whatever doom he's presenting. And pragmatism is part of why I like him. I'm tired of purism.

[–] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I know this is a dickish thing to say, but I'm not going to invest that much time into reading a 3000 word article from someone that I don't know about... Maybe a 600 word article.

[–] phneutral@feddit.org 1 points 4 hours ago

Tante is highly recommended. Perhaps start with a video.

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev -3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I know the real answer, but you won't like it: the world is an objective reality which is extremely difficult to change; ethics, on the other hand, is a set of arbitrary rules that can be changed in whatever way you need almost for free. Should I continue explaining?

[–] rob@mastodon.nz 1 points 5 hours ago
[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe you should read the article first and not just comment based on the title.

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev -4 points 10 hours ago

Or maybe you should provide a TLDR section to interest people to read the article. Ethic problems aren't the most intriguing theme. Most of such texts are just whining without any rationale.