> you think today's technology is comparable to farming?
That’s a not what “since” means.
If a technology causes social change, it will create winners and losers. Those winners tend to autocorrelate (inversely to the magnitude of the shift). As a result, small technological revolutions tend to result in a shift against the broader “us” while broader ones disempower an elite that tries to gain sympathy by aligning itself with that broader “us”. If it doesn’t do either of those, it is—almost by definition—not a technological shift that resulted in social change.
As a result, complaining about technology working against a nebulous “us” is basically saying we had technology that caused social change. Which isn’t a novel point.
> you think today's technology is comparable to farming?
That’s a not what “since” means.
If a technology causes social change, it will create winners and losers. Those winners tend to autocorrelate (inversely to the magnitude of the shift). As a result, small technological revolutions tend to result in a shift against the broader “us” while broader ones disempower an elite that tries to gain sympathy by aligning itself with that broader “us”. If it doesn’t do either of those, it is—almost by definition—not a technological shift that resulted in social change.
As a result, complaining about technology working against a nebulous “us” is basically saying we had technology that caused social change. Which isn’t a novel point.