Choice is a choice.
Attachment 51939

I'm pro-choice.


But as to foot's question, yes, I think we are objectively better off. Not problem-free, by any means, but our problems now are, on the whole, preferable to the problems of yesteryear, if for no other reason than we currently have the choice as to whether to live with modern technology or go Amish. And choice is always better than no choice.

Choose choice.

If we were problem-free, someone would invent video games.

When I see how many people are glued to their iphones and unable to attend to their children, or end up handing down their old ipads, phones or what ever to four and five year olds, I have to disagree that it is a net gain. I suspect it has pros and cons and probably it's a wash. Consider the environmental damage it has caused, it has certainly heled Monsanto along in their work as well as all the other major bad guy players.

I don't think there is an answer, I just wanted to put that question out there as food for thought, maybe start a dialogue to examine the consequneces without trying to make a point one side or the other.

I read that as "plaster" [bandaid].
It worked for me.

the end of hunger? that hasn't happened, with or without computers.

I'm just talking about the first world here.

No, but we're heading in the right direction, and quickly.

Gonna hafta remove people from that equation, first.

That's it, brilliant, kill all the poor. :litebulb:

POOR IS A CHOICE

Alas, stupid is not a choice. But I'd still like someone to blame...