I'm Tired of Pretending Tech is Making the World Better
-
Tech speeds things up. If you want to do good, it'll help you do it faster. If you want to do evil, it'll help you do it faster.
in my opinion, at this point of history, FAST is inherently detrimental. Only those with privilege and resources are able to adapt to rapid changes and reap their benefits, while the rest are left behind.
-
I didn't find the article particularly insightful but I don't like your way of thinking about tech. Technology and society make each other together. Obviously, technology choices like mass transit vs cars shape our lives in ways that the pens example doesn't help us explain. Similarly, society shapes the way that we make technology. Technology is constrained by the rules of the physical world, but that is an underconstraint. The leftover space (i.e. the vast majority) is the process through which we embed social values into the technology. To return to the example of mass transit vs cars, these obviously have different embedded values within them, which then go on to shape the world that we make around them.
This way of thinking helps explain why computer technology specifically is so awful: Computers are shockingly general purpose in a way that has no parallel in physical products. This means that the underconstraining is more pronounced, so social values have an even more outsized say in how they get made. This is why every other software product is just the pure manifestation of capitalism in a way that a robotic arm could never be.
I like the way you argument but I'm not able to grasp what you try to say entirely. English isn't my native language, this may play into it.
Technology is constrained by the rules of the physical world, but that is an underconstraint.
I. e this sentence.:) Would you rephrase it and give an additional example?
I kind of get the mass transit vs. cars example. Although I think both options have their advantages and disadvantages. It becomes very apparent to me when... Lets say, when you give everyone a car and send them all together into rush hour and transform our cities into something well suited for cars but not so much for people. But that doesn't make the wheel or the engine evil in itself.
Also: The society and and it's values affects technology which in turn affects the environment the society lives in. Yes, I get that when I think i.e. about the industrialisation in the 19th century.
I struggle with the idea that a tool (like a computer) is bad because is too general purpose. Society hence the people and their values define how the tool is used. Would you elaborate on that? I'd like to understand the idea.
-
This feels super duper made up
Go yell at the history channel, circa 1996.
-
The original use of what we now think of as a "spoon" originally had nothing to do with food.
1000 years ago they would chain slaves neck to neck. They'd use the spoon to carve out everybodies eyes except the first guy in the line. Slaves don't need to see. They just need to carry heavy shit. The first slave can see. The rest just need to go where their neck drags them.
I say all this to agree with you. Technology isn't the source of corruption and evil. It is just a tool. Just like a spoon. I use my spoon to eat cereal. Others use the spoon to carve out peoples eyes. The spoon is not evil. The spoon is a tool.
Never heard of this spoon invention story. I have doubts.:) I'm almost certain that eyes have been carved out by means of spoon. War, civil unrest and suppression of weaker minorities show that we have it in us.
-
The internet peaked in utility around 2004. Most, if not all, developments since then have only made things worse
This era was before smartphones and always-online lifestyle. Being always online is a prerequisite to the attention economy.
So, yes, you're right that the best internet was back then. Back when we could leave it at home and go out into the world knowing everybody else had also left it at home.
Laptops are an obvious exception back then, but almost nobody took their laptop to the bar with them, or to a concert, or on a hike, or to the grocery store. And the trouble of pulling it out and trying to find WiFi meant that it wasn't easy enough to distract the majority.
-
I'm tired of people saying "technology" when they mean an application of a narrow subfield of technology. Quite often, they're not even talking about the tech at all, but instead the practices, leadership, or stock market performance of some corporation that happens to use or produce such a thing in the course of its business.
I do share the sentiment in this article, though. There's way too much stuff that we don't need being pushed upon us in order to extract wealth or power.
Agree. I think a lot of tech just isn't directly visible to consumers in most cases. I'm specifically thinking of medical applications, robotics, manufacturing, etc. Some more visible applications would be transit (maglev trains are in trials now) and a number of similar things. There's also biotech stuff about which I know little.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tech is a tool. It can be benefitting the oligarchs and restrictive, or benefitting society and open source.
-
I think when most people say something like “technology is making the world worse” they mean the technology as it actually exists and as it is actually developing, not the abstract sense of possible futures that technology could feasibly deliver.
That is clearly what the author of the piece meant.
If the main focus of people who develop most technology is getting people more addicted to their devices so they are easier to exploit the. Technology sucks. If the main focus is to generate immoral levels of waste to scam venture capitalists and idiots on the internet then technology sucks. If the main focus is to use technology to monetize every aspect of someone’s existence, then I think it is fair to say that technology, at this point in history, sucks.
Saying “technology is neutral” is not super insightful if, in the present moment, the trend in technological development and its central applications are mostly evil.
Saying “technology is neutral” is worse than unhelpful if, in the present moment, the people who want to use technology to harm others are also using that cliche to justify their antisocial behavior.
When the discussion is about whether technology + an unregulated human society is likely to end badly, then there is not much to discuss.
There are real life test series. In the 80s many countries put rules into place which forced the industry to filter/ treat their emissions. Technology gooood.
Some countries restrict their people's access to personal fire arms more than others. Statistics show that shootings are more likely, when everybody has a gun. Technology baaad.
In my opinion it is mostly about the common rules a society agrees on. Technology amplifies both ways and needs to be moderated when it is misused.
-
I think the real problem is the drive to monetize so much of the technology. For instance, product owners continually to increase engagement in their stupid apps and continually move things around and add new widgets that people don’t want, or use, all while continuing to degrade the experience of the features that they do use.
It goes both ways: look at how much Lemmy usage has grown, and Lemmy's existence is due to technology. We can protest with our dollars and time by leaving such products behind. Greed is independent of tech itself.
-
Agree. I think a lot of tech just isn't directly visible to consumers in most cases. I'm specifically thinking of medical applications, robotics, manufacturing, etc. Some more visible applications would be transit (maglev trains are in trials now) and a number of similar things. There's also biotech stuff about which I know little.
Water treatment, thermal insulation, textile fabrication, pharmaceuticals, air filtration, construction techniques, signal processing... the list goes on.
-
For the past 20 years, tech has promised to make things more efficient while making almost everything more complicated and less meaningful. Innovation, for innovation's sake, has eroded our craftsmanship, relationships, and ability to think critically.
I feel this in my bones.
I feel this every time I just want to see a restaurant's menu and instead I have to pretend I'm making an online order.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tech doesn't make the world better. It's a tool that's been used to make rich people richer. Everyday people coming together for a greater cause makes the world better.
-
Go yell at the history channel, circa 1996.
So yeah. Super duper made up.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm tired of everybody wanting to see everything in binary good/bad terms.
-
I don't agree. Technology in itself is not helpful nor harmful. It's a tool like a hammer or a knife or a pen and a block of paper.
I agree if one says that technology makes it easier to do harm.:) People and their motives and actions are the same as always, since the stone age and ago.
I think a clear distinction to make might be:
“Tech” as used in this sense is the industrial complex around mobile and web technologies dominated by a few players who might just be evil.
“Technology” is, of course, everything you mentioned and more. A rock that fits nicely in your hand becomes technology when used to crack a coconut.
It’s a weird linguistic murkiness, isn’t it?
-
Tech was ruined in the 90s
40 years later
Pick one. I'm 41 and was born in 1983.
My basic math skills have been terrible lately. I made a basic math error in a post the other day too. I was a strong student in math too
Is this cognitive decline? I’m not even 40
-
I feel this every time I just want to see a restaurant's menu and instead I have to pretend I'm making an online order.
Yeah, just print it and stick it on the table. Or have a tablet or something at the table if it changes frequently.
Don't make me use my phone to look up your menu, that's just tacky.
-
My phone struggled to load the site to order a single cold brew, pop-ups to install the custom App kept obscuring the options, and I had to register with my phone number, email address, and first and last name to buy a $5 cup of coffee.
Then walk out. Don't reward the bullshit with your money. The coffee shop ain't gonna give a shit if you keep buying coffee just to go home and complain on your blog.
Or.. ask the staff for a menu, order with them, respectfully let them know how you feel about the qr/app thing (unlikely it was their decision to implement but they can pass on the complaint), and if they're unwilling to take your order (which is hopefully unlikely at this point) feel free to make a little stink (if you feel inclined) and walk out. Still ok to complain on your blog about being spammed with the app but I'd rather try the obvious options first.
-
It goes both ways: look at how much Lemmy usage has grown, and Lemmy's existence is due to technology. We can protest with our dollars and time by leaving such products behind. Greed is independent of tech itself.
-
I think a clear distinction to make might be:
“Tech” as used in this sense is the industrial complex around mobile and web technologies dominated by a few players who might just be evil.
“Technology” is, of course, everything you mentioned and more. A rock that fits nicely in your hand becomes technology when used to crack a coconut.
It’s a weird linguistic murkiness, isn’t it?
the article is talking about both, or perhaps conflates the two. QR code menus.
