I don’t disagree with your point in general, but this doesn’t make much sense:
If people suffer from the collapse of harmful machinery, it is the fault of the machinery.
No one would have collapsed it if it was not harmful.
A lot of people depend on machines to stay alive, machines that do produce harmful impacts around the world (that may or may not be possible to reduce), like advanced medical equipment that is dependent on semiconductors.
As a disabled person myself, I prefer if no one has to die.
Not all machinery is harmful. As you have indicated yourself.
Motivating people to construct less harmful systems would be a healthy selective pressure.
Nobody in their right mind is interested in destroying someone’s wheel chair, crutches, eyeglasses, or dialysis machine.
If an apparatus is used to violate the social contract and deliberately harm others obviously enough for us to actually casually perceive it happening without even looking for it specifically, it’s fairly obvious that it needs to be disassembled with extreme prejudice.
I don’t disagree with your point in general, but this doesn’t make much sense:
A lot of people depend on machines to stay alive, machines that do produce harmful impacts around the world (that may or may not be possible to reduce), like advanced medical equipment that is dependent on semiconductors.
As a disabled person myself, I prefer if no one has to die.
Not all machinery is harmful. As you have indicated yourself.
Motivating people to construct less harmful systems would be a healthy selective pressure.
Nobody in their right mind is interested in destroying someone’s wheel chair, crutches, eyeglasses, or dialysis machine.
If an apparatus is used to violate the social contract and deliberately harm others obviously enough for us to actually casually perceive it happening without even looking for it specifically, it’s fairly obvious that it needs to be disassembled with extreme prejudice.