2 ms·

Your first statement is a non sequitur. You also neglected to provide any examples of where tech is the best/necessary solution for solving domestic violence.

stcredzero 11y ago
Your second statement is a non sequitur. I never said tech is a best or necessary solution. However, tech can be used to reduce fear or alleviate resource scarcity. My first statement notes that the gp comment basically says they're looking where it's easiest to look, which is the criticism they're also responding to.
- argonaut 11y ago
  You haven't detailed any evidence showing why and to what degree products that broadly and vaguely affecting fear/pain/resource scarcity (resource scarcity is a dubious assertion in of itself - employee productivity growth in America has slowed - so much for the tech revolution) would affect domestic violence. Even if we take your assertion as "common sense," it could very well be that for every 10% change in resource scarcity, you have a 0.001% change in domestic violence. Not to mention it is questionable whether tech is actually able to make a big dent in fear/pain of the human condition in the short term, absent some wild singulatarian fantasy.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    You haven't detailed any evidence showing why and to what degree products that broadly and vaguely affecting fear/pain/resource scarcity Ok, if that's your point -- kind of vacuous. That resource scarcity is one of the big underlying causes of violence is well acknowledged in psychological, sociological, and historical fields. Is there any evidence that products can affect resource scarcity? Certainly. Even if we take your assertion as "common sense," it could very well be that for every 10% change in resource scarcity, you have a 0.001% change in domestic violence. Oh, for Finn's sake! Just Google "study wealth rates of domestic violence." Are you sure you're thinking clearly here in command of the evidence? Your sentence above would indicate you're not in command of the facts. I'm just pointing out a possible avenue of lateral thinking about this problem, citing a well known underlying mechanism from multiple fields of study. What's your point, exactly?

stcredzero 11y ago

Your second statement is a non sequitur. I never said tech is a best or necessary solution. However, tech can be used to reduce fear or alleviate resource scarcity. My first statement notes that the gp comment basically says they're looking where it's easiest to look, which is the criticism they're also responding to.

argonaut 11y ago
You haven't detailed any evidence showing why and to what degree products that broadly and vaguely affecting fear/pain/resource scarcity (resource scarcity is a dubious assertion in of itself - employee productivity growth in America has slowed - so much for the tech revolution) would affect domestic violence. Even if we take your assertion as "common sense," it could very well be that for every 10% change in resource scarcity, you have a 0.001% change in domestic violence. Not to mention it is questionable whether tech is actually able to make a big dent in fear/pain of the human condition in the short term, absent some wild singulatarian fantasy.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  You haven't detailed any evidence showing why and to what degree products that broadly and vaguely affecting fear/pain/resource scarcity Ok, if that's your point -- kind of vacuous. That resource scarcity is one of the big underlying causes of violence is well acknowledged in psychological, sociological, and historical fields. Is there any evidence that products can affect resource scarcity? Certainly. Even if we take your assertion as "common sense," it could very well be that for every 10% change in resource scarcity, you have a 0.001% change in domestic violence. Oh, for Finn's sake! Just Google "study wealth rates of domestic violence." Are you sure you're thinking clearly here in command of the evidence? Your sentence above would indicate you're not in command of the facts. I'm just pointing out a possible avenue of lateral thinking about this problem, citing a well known underlying mechanism from multiple fields of study. What's your point, exactly?