5 ms·

> I occasionally ramble about a golden future for humankind. What, filled with landfills of iphones? The hope to "improve" or "advance" humanity is the most na

by duaneb 10y ago

> I occasionally ramble about a golden future for humankind. What, filled with landfills of iphones? The hope to "improve" or "advance" humanity is the most nauseating part of silicon valley. Technology does not necessarily make the world a better place. In fact, it has actively accelerated the burn rate of our collective resources. Meanwhile, there is zero indication anyone is living a better life than they did before.

lifeisstillgood 10y ago
I disagree - Yeah the latest iPhone app adds zero quality of life, but look at technology over decades - start with penicillin 70 years ago, or heart pacemakers, or simple mobile communications (that changed life enormously - and has huge role in expanding business and relieving poverty not just making it possible for rich westerners to arrange evenings out) Yeah there are a million ways we as humankind can stuff this up, but technology has and does make life qualitatively and quantatively better for millions. It has been doing this at a accelerating rate for two centuries.
- duaneb 10y ago
  "look at" isn't an argument—I would willingly trade a lower life expectancy for a higher quality of life. Epicurean argued—very successfully, I might add—that a longer life is not a better life. Rather, it is only in addressing our fears for the future it provides any benefit at all, and it's not clear the industrial overhead of pacemakers are worth the reduced anxiety of sudden death, especially when the quality of life has already greatly diminished due to age.
  - tim333 10y ago
    On pretty most quantifiable measures quality of life is better. I guess you can say in the old days there was terrible infant mortality, slavery, starvation and so on but I would have prefered that but I think most would not.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Sure, there was also the possibility of much more enjoyable lifestyles than urbanization can offer. The idea that a 40 hour work week is desirable to anyone is absurdity.
      - ci5er 10y ago
        A 40 hour work-week is quite leisurely compared to the sun-up to sun-down 7-days/week of most rural folks I knew growing up. I couldn't wait to grow up and escape to the city where they had these things called weekends.
        duaneb 10y ago
        I grew up in the country, too. The only place I've ever encountered full working during daylight every day is on a farm—another technology that is unnatural. Truly, humans cannot comprehend freedom from society. However, our flight-or-fight responses give us some insight, and I'd put money on our stress rates being higher now than ever before. Regardless of whether there are threats, we perceive them everywhere.
        Teever 10y ago
        If you genuinely felt this way what is stopping you from leaving society and living off the land?
        duaneb 10y ago
        Well, a lot stops me. Social life, love of culture, a lack of skills, and a taste for modern cooking. But I'm not advocating that; I'm advocating a look at progress based around sustainable, high quality of life. This involves actually making arguments for high quality of life, which is a very rare practice beyond mentioning technology. I think there's a lot to be said for non-materialist culture, if you can find a good way to encourage that, and families planned as well as we are able to.
  - lifeisstillgood 10y ago
    Pre-industrialisation I fear you would have not had the leisure time to read Epicurean, and even if you had, you would not have been able to afford the book and frankly even if you got a copy no-one would have bothered to teach you to read. The vast wealth generated by harnessing steam, oil and electricity has meant universal education is possible - I doubt that 95% of HN or Silicon Valley would be literate without it. I just cannot see your argument as anything but a retread of "only those with money, think money is not important"
tadfisher 10y ago
You make a salient point, but I'm not sure Silicon Valley is unique in this regard, nor do I think "technology" is uniformly bent on accelerating resource consumption. If you narrow your criticism you might find some insight worth sharing.
- eyelidlessness 10y ago
  Your use of "bent on" seems to suggest intent, I'm not sure if that's what you meant. I think you would be hard pressed to find an application of technology (in normal human terms, not the uptight definition of "applied knowledge") that does not consume resources. Electronics in particular consume electricity which must be generated and stored, as well as refined mining products. The production of these resources also consumes additional resources. Distribution and eventual disposal likewise. All of these at a greater rate than would be consumed absent electronics. You might consider these costs worth the benefits of having these electronics. Or you might, if you're more careful, pepper "some" throughout the prior sentence. Many of the impacts could certainly be reduced, but almost none of them can be eliminated. Making things has a cost, often a greater cost than not making them. Dismissing that as insufficiently narrow for discussion is either ignorant or dishonest.
monk_e_boy 10y ago
How many hours have been saved with people not getting lost (maps + gps) ... a few of my friends have called the coast guard to come rescue them. No idea if they would have died, but lets assume that some of those people with phones have used them to save a life. Looking up stuff. Taking photos and videos.
tigershark 10y ago
I'm living for sure a better life with my iPhone. If you don't need a smartphone and you are happy with a crappy dumbphone doesn't mean that a lot of other people in the world are not enjoying a better life thanks to the smartphones. Reading all my books on the go, listening to music, find the right way instead of getting lost, studying and so on. These are all things that I cannot do on a dumbphone and they indeed improved considerably my lifestyle.
TuringNYC 10y ago
I wont say technology is without cost, but i'll give you an example of humanity advancing -- near-free communication. In college (1996), i craved speaking to my mom, even for 5 minutes. But it cost about a week's student salary to speak for 5 minutes long distance. We just didn't. We'd speak for 1 minute ever 2 weeks or so. It was incredibly painful. Towards the end of college, that cost went to nearly zero. Today it is essentially zero. I hope to speak to my kids plenty when they are in college. Some people say...you are speaking about nickles and dimes here. But they fail to understand that for many people, $10 will bring their bank balance below zero.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Communication is a problem invented by humans—nobody said you needed to leave home. Furthermore, the cost of talking to your mother—global industrial production lines, addiction to technology, and the loss of social skills—is extremely hard to weigh. I land firmly on the side of luddite—I value sustainability and social intimacy over convenience. However, it is not even clear that the average techie considers the above problems at all, let alone major ones. So—again, you're just assuming that I would consider communication worth what we're doing to our children and our planet. It is emphatically not worth it and does not improve quality of life except for problems you cause in the first place.
  - specialist 10y ago
    A luddite with +5207 karma.

by duaneb 10y ago

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

I disagree - Yeah the latest iPhone app adds zero quality of life, but look at technology over decades - start with penicillin 70 years ago, or heart pacemakers, or simple mobile communications (that changed life enormously - and has huge role in expanding business and relieving poverty not just making it possible for rich westerners to arrange evenings out) Yeah there are a million ways we as humankind can stuff this up, but technology has and does make life qualitatively and quantatively better for millions. It has been doing this at a accelerating rate for two centuries.

duaneb 10y ago
"look at" isn't an argument—I would willingly trade a lower life expectancy for a higher quality of life. Epicurean argued—very successfully, I might add—that a longer life is not a better life. Rather, it is only in addressing our fears for the future it provides any benefit at all, and it's not clear the industrial overhead of pacemakers are worth the reduced anxiety of sudden death, especially when the quality of life has already greatly diminished due to age.
- tim333 10y ago
  On pretty most quantifiable measures quality of life is better. I guess you can say in the old days there was terrible infant mortality, slavery, starvation and so on but I would have prefered that but I think most would not.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Sure, there was also the possibility of much more enjoyable lifestyles than urbanization can offer. The idea that a 40 hour work week is desirable to anyone is absurdity.
    - ci5er 10y ago
      A 40 hour work-week is quite leisurely compared to the sun-up to sun-down 7-days/week of most rural folks I knew growing up. I couldn't wait to grow up and escape to the city where they had these things called weekends.
      - duaneb 10y ago
        I grew up in the country, too. The only place I've ever encountered full working during daylight every day is on a farm—another technology that is unnatural. Truly, humans cannot comprehend freedom from society. However, our flight-or-fight responses give us some insight, and I'd put money on our stress rates being higher now than ever before. Regardless of whether there are threats, we perceive them everywhere.
        Teever 10y ago
        If you genuinely felt this way what is stopping you from leaving society and living off the land?
        duaneb 10y ago
        Well, a lot stops me. Social life, love of culture, a lack of skills, and a taste for modern cooking. But I'm not advocating that; I'm advocating a look at progress based around sustainable, high quality of life. This involves actually making arguments for high quality of life, which is a very rare practice beyond mentioning technology. I think there's a lot to be said for non-materialist culture, if you can find a good way to encourage that, and families planned as well as we are able to.
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  Pre-industrialisation I fear you would have not had the leisure time to read Epicurean, and even if you had, you would not have been able to afford the book and frankly even if you got a copy no-one would have bothered to teach you to read. The vast wealth generated by harnessing steam, oil and electricity has meant universal education is possible - I doubt that 95% of HN or Silicon Valley would be literate without it. I just cannot see your argument as anything but a retread of "only those with money, think money is not important"

tadfisher 10y ago

You make a salient point, but I'm not sure Silicon Valley is unique in this regard, nor do I think "technology" is uniformly bent on accelerating resource consumption. If you narrow your criticism you might find some insight worth sharing.

eyelidlessness 10y ago
Your use of "bent on" seems to suggest intent, I'm not sure if that's what you meant. I think you would be hard pressed to find an application of technology (in normal human terms, not the uptight definition of "applied knowledge") that does not consume resources. Electronics in particular consume electricity which must be generated and stored, as well as refined mining products. The production of these resources also consumes additional resources. Distribution and eventual disposal likewise. All of these at a greater rate than would be consumed absent electronics. You might consider these costs worth the benefits of having these electronics. Or you might, if you're more careful, pepper "some" throughout the prior sentence. Many of the impacts could certainly be reduced, but almost none of them can be eliminated. Making things has a cost, often a greater cost than not making them. Dismissing that as insufficiently narrow for discussion is either ignorant or dishonest.

monk_e_boy 10y ago

How many hours have been saved with people not getting lost (maps + gps) ... a few of my friends have called the coast guard to come rescue them. No idea if they would have died, but lets assume that some of those people with phones have used them to save a life. Looking up stuff. Taking photos and videos.

tigershark 10y ago

I'm living for sure a better life with my iPhone. If you don't need a smartphone and you are happy with a crappy dumbphone doesn't mean that a lot of other people in the world are not enjoying a better life thanks to the smartphones. Reading all my books on the go, listening to music, find the right way instead of getting lost, studying and so on. These are all things that I cannot do on a dumbphone and they indeed improved considerably my lifestyle.

TuringNYC 10y ago

I wont say technology is without cost, but i'll give you an example of humanity advancing -- near-free communication. In college (1996), i craved speaking to my mom, even for 5 minutes. But it cost about a week's student salary to speak for 5 minutes long distance. We just didn't. We'd speak for 1 minute ever 2 weeks or so. It was incredibly painful. Towards the end of college, that cost went to nearly zero. Today it is essentially zero. I hope to speak to my kids plenty when they are in college. Some people say...you are speaking about nickles and dimes here. But they fail to understand that for many people, $10 will bring their bank balance below zero.

duaneb 10y ago
Communication is a problem invented by humans—nobody said you needed to leave home. Furthermore, the cost of talking to your mother—global industrial production lines, addiction to technology, and the loss of social skills—is extremely hard to weigh. I land firmly on the side of luddite—I value sustainability and social intimacy over convenience. However, it is not even clear that the average techie considers the above problems at all, let alone major ones. So—again, you're just assuming that I would consider communication worth what we're doing to our children and our planet. It is emphatically not worth it and does not improve quality of life except for problems you cause in the first place.
- specialist 10y ago
  A luddite with +5207 karma.