/lit/ - Literature

>>12112635
>cultural revolution, technology is completely irrelevant in this regard
I disagree. I believe the degradation of societal pillars, that have served us well for so long, is directly linked to the inability of culture to evolve in tandem with the increasing speed of technological innovation.

>It took 200,000 years of cumulative knowledge for man to invent the combustible engine, and only 50 years from that moment to successfully split the atom.
>The first successful airplane flight was in 1903, and 44 years later in 1947 we broke the sound barrier in an airplane for the first time. Then 22 years later in 1969 we successfully flew, and landed, a spacecraft to the moon. First flight to touchdown on the moon only took 66 years.
>In the 1970's we invented the personal computer, and 40 years from that moment and we're on the brink of creating consciousness from scratch with artificial intelligence.
>We didn't invent the modern firearm until 1363, and 6 centuries later we are able to drone someone from an office chair halfway across the world, or nuke the world into a nuclear winter that would end all life on earth.

My point? Technology is not inherently evil, but it develops at a speed that does not allow the collective culture of humanity to keep up. How much could culture have collectively matured within that amount of time? How much will we change in the coming several generations before something else monumental tests the weakness that is inherit to human consciousness and threatens our continued survival for the simple reason that we are not ready to use it responsibly?