And how do you know something new is good? You've never tried it, stress tested it, identified the flaws. It could look like a million bucks on paper and still explode in your face on the launchpad.
Whereas, whether good or bad, anything that is old has been implemented in reality; we know it works, if nothing else.
I'm not a Luddite by any stretch, but I also can plainly see that I don't want for anything material. The problems I see in my society are not ones of scarcity, but of psychology; my people are purposeless, demoralised, treading water in decadent excess, and constantly dancing on the edge of mass murder/suicide. We'll smother under piles of our own trash before we have to worry about freezing to death, our hearts will explode before we starve.
These are problems that we've already solved, but the solutions were abandoned because they require personal sacrifice. Instead, people delude themselves into thinking they can innovate their way out of their own weakness. Why eat healthy and exercise when you can take a magic pill?
Other than the horrific side effects of the drug itself, which we're just starting to see, what kind of person does that create?
You talk about civilization being created by our judgement ("keeping good old and replacing bad old with good new") but that's not how it works. People who are Good discover and create things that are Good. Marie Curie spent her whole life doing good; she saw and opposed the evils of the Russian occupation of her homeland and, instead of responding with violence, sought to teach the children of Poland their history (Poland is now free and their culture is significantly more patriotic and healthy than any other European nation, btw). She discovered atomic radiation and the first thing it was used for was a way to help surgeons save lives. Julius Oppenheimer, by comparison, wasn't even intentionally evil; just being focused on his own success, rather than Good specifically. He created a weapon so terrible that it's children threaten the existence of life itself.
When does the judgement part kick in? When does humanity say "X-rays are Good so we'll keep them, but we'll get rid of nuclear bombs?"
It doesn't, or at least it hasn't in nearly 100 years. Because once the box is open, there's no going back (another ancient lesson we've put aside). Creating things for the sake of having them is not even neutral, it invites evil because there are infinite things that can exist, but only an infinitessimal fraction of them are Good. All Good things, including civilization, come about as an inevitable side effect of people aligning themselves with Good, not from the intention to innovate.
While this is your hypothetical, not mine, I will say that I would far rather live in a world where humans eschew innovation in favour of making the best of what they have, than a world where they discard what they have in the hopes that something they don't will save them. Luckily, this isn't the choice we're faced with.
And how do you know something new is good? You've never tried it, stress tested it, identified the flaws. It could look like a million bucks on paper and still explode in your face on the launchpad.
Whereas, whether good or bad, anything that is old has been implemented in reality; we know it works, if nothing else.
I'm not a Luddite by any stretch, but I also can plainly see that I don't want for anything material. The problems I see in my society are not ones of scarcity, but of psychology; my people are purposeless, demoralised, treading water in decadent excess, and constantly dancing on the edge of mass murder/suicide. We'll smother under piles of our own trash before we have to worry about freezing to death, our hearts will explode before we starve.
These are problems that we've already solved, but the solutions were abandoned because they require personal sacrifice. Instead, people delude themselves into thinking they can innovate their way out of their own weakness. Why eat healthy and exercise when you can take a magic pill?
Other than the horrific side effects of the drug itself, which we're just starting to see, what kind of person does that create?
You talk about civilization being created by our judgement ("keeping good old and replacing bad old with good new") but that's not how it works. People who are Good discover and create things that are Good. Marie Curie spent her whole life doing good; she saw and opposed the evils of the Russian occupation of her homeland and, instead of responding with violence, sought to teach the children of Poland their history (Poland is now free and their culture is significantly more patriotic and healthy than any other European nation, btw). She discovered atomic radiation and the first thing it was used for was a way to help surgeons save lives. Julius Oppenheimer, by comparison, wasn't even intentionally evil; just being focused on his own success, rather than Good specifically. He created a weapon so terrible that it's children threaten the existence of life itself.
When does the judgement part kick in? When does humanity say "X-rays are Good so we'll keep them, but we'll get rid of nuclear bombs?"
It doesn't, or at least it hasn't in nearly 100 years. Because once the box is open, there's no going back (another ancient lesson we've put aside). Creating things for the sake of having them is not even neutral, it invites evil because there are infinite things that can exist, but only an infinitessimal fraction of them are Good. All Good things, including civilization, come about as an inevitable side effect of people aligning themselves with Good, not from the intention to innovate.
While this is your hypothetical, not mine, I will say that I would far rather live in a world where humans eschew innovation in favour of making the best of what they have, than a world where they discard what they have in the hopes that something they don't will save them. Luckily, this isn't the choice we're faced with.