4 ms·

Here's the thing: that "how to use the result" part means that you have to get involved in politics as known by common definition and all its mess, inefficiency

Here's the thing: that "how to use the result" part means that you have to get involved in politics as known by common definition and all its mess, inefficiency, terrible campaigning, and more. It's a game of slowly moving things by inches (not to say that radical thinkers and politicians don't have their effects, but rather they help pull towards a side). You clearly care about the morality and would want to have political action based off it (in so that it was effective, etc). So given that, why is time spent on changing political mechanisms and enacting change using new technology any less important than the tech itself? In fact, why isn't it more important than the tech? I'm not trying to make the case for one side here, but more tease out that no matter the sad state of politics everywhere right now, it's still crucial to taking the tools to have any effect. I can't say I know the specific path to change, but I think it's important we value the problem and not dismiss politics as a whole. I personally am interested and have stuff on my reading list for the role of technocratic government setups over democratic decisions for certain fields/areas of government like infrastructure. If you work and discuss ways to fix a political system you do a lot more than trying to stay out - who are you then leaving all those decisions to? Going back to the original thread, you said this: > I thought it's a great way to actually address the bigger problems in the world personally If you ignore the political side, it doesn't matter if you invent the cure for cancer if all the politicians decide to burn your paper upon reading it.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
I think you can avoid involvement with the common-definition politics to a large extent, and this is in fact a part of a change being effective. I see the political world as molasses; you stick your hand too far into it, and you won't get out. You (should) want people to have a say in how the new tech impacts their lives, but you probably don't want to get sucked into partisanship and endless bickering about political ideologies. It's a waste of time that doesn't help anyone (except the print & media business). I can't remember who said it, but I read once that developing technology is about giving politicians more options. The complicated incentive systems governing modern politics may not allow the rulers to solve some problem right now, but if you give them more options, then maybe one of them can be used. E.g. with climate change, there's no way politicians will just shut down coal plants and build nuclear ones instead. But dropping prices of renewables give them an option to achieve the same end goal more gradually. Ultimately, my (current, always subject to change) view is that if you want to help effectively, you need to avoid touching the dysfunctional parts of modern politics as much as possible, lest they suck you in.
- adjkant 8y ago
  That makes sense, can completely see that perspective. I think at this point it's more just semantics that I'm saying the thought and choices given to what tech you work on to "give more options" is a political and moral decision, one many engineers ignore. When I hear someone in tech say "they want to stay out of politics, I think often they use it as a way to avoid those problems. Thanks for the in-depth conversation here!

TeMPOraL 8y ago

I think you can avoid involvement with the common-definition politics to a large extent, and this is in fact a part of a change being effective. I see the political world as molasses; you stick your hand too far into it, and you won't get out. You (should) want people to have a say in how the new tech impacts their lives, but you probably don't want to get sucked into partisanship and endless bickering about political ideologies. It's a waste of time that doesn't help anyone (except the print & media business). I can't remember who said it, but I read once that developing technology is about giving politicians more options. The complicated incentive systems governing modern politics may not allow the rulers to solve some problem right now, but if you give them more options, then maybe one of them can be used. E.g. with climate change, there's no way politicians will just shut down coal plants and build nuclear ones instead. But dropping prices of renewables give them an option to achieve the same end goal more gradually. Ultimately, my (current, always subject to change) view is that if you want to help effectively, you need to avoid touching the dysfunctional parts of modern politics as much as possible, lest they suck you in.

adjkant 8y ago
That makes sense, can completely see that perspective. I think at this point it's more just semantics that I'm saying the thought and choices given to what tech you work on to "give more options" is a political and moral decision, one many engineers ignore. When I hear someone in tech say "they want to stay out of politics, I think often they use it as a way to avoid those problems. Thanks for the in-depth conversation here!