5 ms·

I imagine the progress in microprocessors, photolithography, search, education, power generation, drugs discovery, communications, etc., etc., do have a measura

I imagine the progress in microprocessors, photolithography, search, education, power generation, drugs discovery, communications, etc., etc., do have a measurable impact on progress of the species. Imagine if tech were stuck where it was in even 1999. So many things possible today would not be possible (due to cost or unavailability).

rainbowmverse 9y ago
These things are good, but have so far been applied carelessly and unevenly. This is where my comment about conscientiousness comes in. We need to start asking "For what purpose?" and "Who could this hurt?" more often. Packing more transistors into a CPU and working magic with algorithms to squeeze more out of them is not so good if it goes into a machine intended for surveillance and violating privacy, or to wipe out a million jobs because it can all be done by a few people now. We can keep packing the transistors and working the magic, but it's going to keep doing a lot of damage if the people responsible don't think about the human impact.
- pizzetta 9y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree we spend much of our technology on both frivolous stuff and dangerous stuff (things that are detrimental to the wellbeing of people in general) -but the good offsets the negatives, I think.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Anything can be used for good or evil. Its the wrong place to attack the problem - we can't live in the stone age because "somebody might misuse fire".
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    Someone did invent the fire extinguisher and come up with Stop, Drop, and Roll, though. I'm not saying don't do new things. For example, Bandcamp giving me a way to download a list of people who've bought my music is like a fire extinguisher. If Bandcamp burns, I don't lose everything with it. That's conscientious of them. Most places that sell music don't offer that.
- stale2002 9y ago
  What are you talking about. Wiping out millions of jobs is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I'd argue that it literally the entire point of technology. "Destroying jobs" means that those people are freed up to do some else that is valuable and aren't wasting their time doing stuff that isn't worth anything to anybody. Creating "jobs" is easy. Just implement a tax, and pay a bunch of people to dig holes and fill them up again. Or do the modern equivalent of that and pay people to mess around with spreadsheets in an office and then throw away the spreadsheet. At least that method of "job creation" is being honest.
ashark 9y ago
> Imagine if tech were stuck where it was in even 1999. So many things possible today would not be possible (due to cost or unavailability). Where tech directly touches my life, I wouldn't say today's tech makes me any happier or substantially improves my wellbeing over what 1999-level tech did. Worse in some ways. I do different stuff with 2017 tech than I would without it, but I doubt it's actually improving my life more than 1999 tech. I do have to remain up-to-date and immersed in it because it's an expectation of modern life and you'll drop out of what remains of shared culture and expectations of availability, et c if you don't (especially being a developer) but it's not per se especially appealing. Self-driving cars (though I expect their benefit to largely be eaten up by race-to-the-bottom behavior or some form of rents capture, same as wide availability of personal automobiles mostly destroyed their time-saving benefits) and (even better) affordable, highly capable general-purpose housework robots would be a big deal for my quality of life, but we don't have those yet. I'm sure industry and R&D applications of post-1999 tech improvements have been important, of course.
- mtdewcmu 9y ago
  The canonical counterexample to "who needs progress?" is medicine. I wouldn't want to be limited to the medical care from 1999 if all else is equal. Who needs to live with hepatitis C now that there's a cure?

rainbowmverse 9y ago

These things are good, but have so far been applied carelessly and unevenly. This is where my comment about conscientiousness comes in. We need to start asking "For what purpose?" and "Who could this hurt?" more often. Packing more transistors into a CPU and working magic with algorithms to squeeze more out of them is not so good if it goes into a machine intended for surveillance and violating privacy, or to wipe out a million jobs because it can all be done by a few people now. We can keep packing the transistors and working the magic, but it's going to keep doing a lot of damage if the people responsible don't think about the human impact.

pizzetta 9y ago
I wholeheartedly agree we spend much of our technology on both frivolous stuff and dangerous stuff (things that are detrimental to the wellbeing of people in general) -but the good offsets the negatives, I think.
JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Anything can be used for good or evil. Its the wrong place to attack the problem - we can't live in the stone age because "somebody might misuse fire".
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  Someone did invent the fire extinguisher and come up with Stop, Drop, and Roll, though. I'm not saying don't do new things. For example, Bandcamp giving me a way to download a list of people who've bought my music is like a fire extinguisher. If Bandcamp burns, I don't lose everything with it. That's conscientious of them. Most places that sell music don't offer that.
stale2002 9y ago
What are you talking about. Wiping out millions of jobs is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I'd argue that it literally the entire point of technology. "Destroying jobs" means that those people are freed up to do some else that is valuable and aren't wasting their time doing stuff that isn't worth anything to anybody. Creating "jobs" is easy. Just implement a tax, and pay a bunch of people to dig holes and fill them up again. Or do the modern equivalent of that and pay people to mess around with spreadsheets in an office and then throw away the spreadsheet. At least that method of "job creation" is being honest.

ashark 9y ago

> Imagine if tech were stuck where it was in even 1999. So many things possible today would not be possible (due to cost or unavailability). Where tech directly touches my life, I wouldn't say today's tech makes me any happier or substantially improves my wellbeing over what 1999-level tech did. Worse in some ways. I do different stuff with 2017 tech than I would without it, but I doubt it's actually improving my life more than 1999 tech. I do have to remain up-to-date and immersed in it because it's an expectation of modern life and you'll drop out of what remains of shared culture and expectations of availability, et c if you don't (especially being a developer) but it's not per se especially appealing. Self-driving cars (though I expect their benefit to largely be eaten up by race-to-the-bottom behavior or some form of rents capture, same as wide availability of personal automobiles mostly destroyed their time-saving benefits) and (even better) affordable, highly capable general-purpose housework robots would be a big deal for my quality of life, but we don't have those yet. I'm sure industry and R&D applications of post-1999 tech improvements have been important, of course.

mtdewcmu 9y ago
The canonical counterexample to "who needs progress?" is medicine. I wouldn't want to be limited to the medical care from 1999 if all else is equal. Who needs to live with hepatitis C now that there's a cure?