This would stop the currently exponential pace of growth from outpacing what society, and regulation, can adapt to. Thus avoiding the inevitable crash that will happen when we lose control of the exponentially accelerating train of technology, and it flies off the rails.
It’s not as simple as that.
For some it might be true, but for others, the opposite would be actual beneficial.
E.g. I see such a technological governor currently in action in my country trying to slowdown transition to sustainable energies.
I don’t think that is a desirable governor, unless you are over 60 and don’t give a shit about what will be happening in a few years, cause you’ll be dead by then.
deleted by creator
Well, one could argue it is less corruption and lobbying but the normal process by which technological progress has been regulating itself for most of the time.
Typically, the younger generations embrace new tech in daily life, while the more conservative older generations are more set on preserving the status quo, ideally resulting in a steady, manageable introduction of new tech over the course of decades.
This in itself is not bad, but in some instances that natural slowing-down mechanism just fails.