I'm Tired of Pretending Tech is Making the World Better
-
If consumers were rational Tesla stock wouldn’t be where it is, meme coins wouldn’t exist, nft craze wouldn’t have happened (btw all examples of tech spending money to trick dumb people). Consumers routinely DO NOT go for the cheapest possible option but frequently get tricked by stupid gimmicks and smoke and mirrors. For example - Colgate started wrapping their toothpaste boxes in a clear plastic that sparkles under grocery store lights. Despite raising prices, introducing wasteful plastic, and increased packaging costs they increased market share and profits - that’s not rational. You seem to have been sold on libertarian delusions.
I never mentioned salaries and I very distinctly did mention that majority of the people in the world live in smaller communities with limited choices. If a tech overlord buys out their businesses (e.g buying all local newspaper and replacing them with mostly ai slop and agenda articles) there are not many alternatives. Insisting that because you have some choice in some matters it means everyone does is naive … and also another example of an irrational consumer lol
-
Instead of speaking to you directly, and see your face and features, I relate to you through pure text... A whole lot of important factors disappear as I do.
Yes. That's an aspect to keep in mind.
I think distorted is a bit negative. Communication with filters, yes. I see advantages and disadvantages. It really depends on the case. It's technology-bound but not exclusive to the digital age - Letters existed before.
Advantages: asynchronity, time to think and reply. Use of different media. Less stressful because less information to process - there is a reason why video telephony isn't mainstream. Less bias, for all you know I could be Gregor Samsa - you don't see my gender, age, skin, clothing style. just my text. Disadvantages: misunderstandings can become more likely, since you dont know me. It's more time consuming to talk through an issue... and so on.
See for example Heidegger, Ellul, Arendt.
Would you recommend one specific article or book?
-
Surely you can have your cake and eat it too, right?
-
I watched a documentary about the Unabomber and had the same thought
-
More specifically, it's capitalism that is the problem, not tech.
-
Is it a shocker most people in tech are selfish, short sighted, and self-aggrandizing?
-
Luckily some games are still made for fun. And some gambling games were fun before they were monetized, and still are in spite of it.
-
Maybe some tech has increased efficiency (although, when it does that increase is more often than not temporary and short lived), but there is even more "tech" that swarms that space rent seeking any time, money, or other resource saved by that increased efficiency. After the efficiencies degrade, the tech-as-a-scam persists and you end up with less efficient systems than you started with.
-
yes, that is the root of the problem
-
..always with the verification cans.
-
Imagine VR so real that someone severely allergic to cats can know what it's like to give one scritches and feel it purr. Imagine someone who is paraplegic knowing what it's like to swim or climb a mountain. Now imagine how much money Mark Zuckerberg will make when it's $22.95/month with ads and requires you to put in your Social Security Number.
-
I don't understand the question...
-
Consumers don't buy stock, and deifnieltely not enough to influence trillion dollar company valuation, let's begin with that.
I never said they go for "the cheapest option, period". They are willing to spend extra if they get perceived, or real, value, like aestelhetics (your example) , social status (cars for instance) or functionality (iPhone).
I'm very far from libertarian, so let's abstain about speculating about each other's beliefs and let's talk about ideas.
Majaority of people in the world do NOT live in smaller communities, first, and tech only increases choices, second, so even if the first was true it's still an argument in favor of tech. I can get the new York times (or the helsingin sanomat) in the smallest village of Germany, again thanks to technology.
-
You attack capitalism in an article about tech, so let's ask how is that your takeaway, then I'll answer.
-
That is what naked apes they said about clothes
-
Tech itself is not the issue. How it’s applied is the issue.
At this point, I would argue that technology is the issue. Or, at least, the current iteration of it.
Internal Combustion Engines, always-on internet connections, and digital financial systems are generating real physical hazards that stretch beyond their benefits. This isn't just an issue of use. There is no "proper" method of employing - for instance - cryptocurrency or single-use plastics or a statewide surveillance network that doesn't result in a degradation of quality of life for the population at large. To take a more dramatic angle, there's no safe application of a nuclear bomb.
When the iEye app notifies you that the enzyme is running low, simply crack open an ice cold, refreshing can of Tesla Cola Zero to refuel your device for another two hours. Need to sleep? We got you.
Except this isn't a technological innovation, its a Science Fantasy. iEye isn't a real thing. Tesla Cola Zero isn't a real thing. Not needing sleep isn't a real thing. You're not a cyborg and you will never be a cyborg.
But the science fantasy is still having its own cost. People are making real material nationally-transformative (or de-transformative) decisions based on the fantastic promises we've been sold about Tomorrow. We're underdeveloping our mass transit infrastructure and relying entirely too much on unregulated air travel to speed up travel. At the same time, we're clinging to old bunker-fuel laden container ships and decimating the aquatic ecology, because we refuse to adapt proven nuclear powered shipping that's over 60 years old at this point. We're investing more and more and more money in digital surveillance and personal tracking. We're off-loading our ability to collect and process information to unreliable digital tools (LLMs being only the latest in overhyped AI as a replacement for professionalized human labor). And then we're trying to justify the bad decisions we make as a result by claiming secret wisdom inherent in machines.
We're eating our seed corn after being told technologists will eliminate our need to eat ever again.
This is a direct result of technological developments we have made (or promised to make and failed to deliver) over the last twenty years. Revolutions in racial profiling, viral marketing, planned obsolescence, military expansionism, and genocide have not improved our quality of life in any material sense.
The cow has not benefited from industrial agriculture. And the prole has not benefited from de-skilling of labor.
-
I'd say that's mostly right, but it's less about opportunities, and more about design. To return to the example of the factory: Let's say that there was a communist revolution and the workers now own the factory. The machines still have them facing away from each other. If they want to face each other, they'll have to rebuild the machine. The values of the old system are literally physically present in the machine.
So it's not that you can do different things with a technology based on your values, but that different values produce technology differently. This actually limits future possibilities. Those workers physically cannot face each other on that machine, even if they want to use it that way. The past's values are frozen in that machine.
-
For recommendations you can't go wrong with Martin Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology. It's a difficult read without previous knowledge of Heidegger's philosophy (or phenomenology), but the essay is so influential that there is plenty of secondary literature on it, from videos to podcasts to texts.
His argument, in essence, is that technology is a way of being that makes everything appear as resources for technology to use. As we become a technological society we see people as "human resources", nature as a depot to be emptied: wind as power, rivers as kinetic energy, the ground as a chest of minerals.
The same phenomenon can also be seen in everything that digital technology does to the persons and society. For example Cambridge Analytica, they are an expression of technology as a way of being, and what they see is untapped resources to be harvested for political gain.
The argument is so influential that Arendt appropriated it to argue that technological/scientific politics will always become self-deluding without actual human intervention. Ellul argued that the technological society becomes self-referential, so that technology creates new issues that we can only solve with technology, which creates new issues (and so on). In the end we become able to do anything... but unable to either stop the cycle or understand what is going on.
-
I kinda agree with the article, I genuinely think humanity peaked with the computer of the PS2 era. Or maybe it had something to do with the patriot act. Just feels like after that things had gotten worse substantially
-
I have never played loot box / gambling / gacha games. I will admit that I have given in and I do play games with DRMs, which are most games these days.
