@deshipu I think your questions here are all based on a fundamentally flawed assumption: that there is a "we" that can make the choice as if it was a person.
In reality there's billions of people with different problems, beliefs, wielding different amount of resources and control over other people. People forming groups that are in competition (which sometimes looks like it isn't there, because a balance is achieved). This dynamic is structurally making it hard to choose against self-interest. 🧵
For example: I, or my country, can for some reason choose not to use e.g. wheels for transportation despite being able to do so, but if you/your country chooses to use them, then I/my folks are suddenly at an economic and/or military disadvantage that will only continue to grow as time goes on. So you opting to develop wheels forces me to do the same, just to restore the balance and prevent getting exploited/conquered.
Most questions of the form "could humanity X?" have similar answer.
@deshipu It's worth observing that in general, the degree to which individuals, groups or countries tend to make arbitrary choices based on high-minded values, is inversely correlated with how much they believe those choices actually matter to their safety/survival.
Examples abound, both in everyday life, economy and politics. We've been talking about military, but same applies to business world: companies in actual competition take every advantage and cut every corner they can get away with.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!