Should the U.S. citizenry asking where the presidential candidates stand on technology?

Question

New technologies abound - many have "high impact" potentials or open-ended application capabilities. Their respective "debuts" (and marriages) can have far-reaching & unforeseen effects, most often destabilizing. Do candidates stand for laissez-faire non-interventionism OR more proactive, reflexive approach whereby humankind is given due-notice & due-diligence, to encourage a participatory future & create organizations to expeditiously reach viable & reliable consenses as to the kinds of application which should be tolerated over a given span of time. This points to questions concerning rates of change & human abilities to maintain a cohesive society & sustainable ecologies.
The technology acquisition curve - an exponential one, is NOT an academic "pipe-dream;" but a very real fact of our present day existence. Will we collectively choose to face a "no-holds-barred" future or one of "managed (in)sanity?" Think about genetics & the knee-jerk reactionism against stem cell research!

One must either choose activism or be resolved to accept whatever befalls them... and their children's grandchildren. Will we be seen as self-absorbed & blinded by our own "creature comforts?" Or can we hope to be remembered as a society that chose to embrace the responsibilities of choosing to be "fair-minded" AND proactive? I fear we still tend to think in the short term only and seldom trouble ourselves with the "long-view."

Answer 1

Absolutely. A key issue over the next 20 years will be to find a balance between the economy, environment, and energy independence. Technology will play a big part in this.