OK, given that technological advancement is the only alternative to
the destruction of both humanity and the planetary ecosystem, we
are now left with arguments about the nature of the technological
change. Again, I feel that there is really not much we can do to
guide the advance. Technological change in this era is driven by
software, and software development is now very distributed and
uncontrollable. This means that arguments about the moral and
ethical aspects of technological change are interesting, but
have no practical point, since the change is uncontrollable.
Yes, there are a great many plausable scenarios in which technlogical
change has detremental effects, but it's the only game in town. Live
with it. IMO, the only way an individual can affect the change is
to try to introduce and advance useful, non-detremental changes
as fast as possible, while analyzing and warning against possible
detremental effects. Given the historically accelerating rate of
change, I feel that any atempt to make non-technical changes to
society (i.e., a new ethic, a new religion, a new educational system,
a new form of government) will take too long to have an important
effect on technological change: by the time such a slow-acting change
can have an impact (order 25 years) technology will have
changed society beyond all recognition.