6 ms·

Algorithm and Blues: The Tyranny of the Coming Smart-Tech Utopia

77 points by raleighm 8y ago

bem94 8y ago
> Most people do not subscribe fully or exclusively to the ideals embedded in the smart-tech utopian vision, yet they’ll have no choice but to live by those ideals. All too true. The kinds of comment like "but they can just not use X" always appear in the context of Facebook/Google (often when they appear on HN). But that's like saying you should just "not use CCTV". I'm not a user of FB/Google/Smart Tech, it uses me, and when it is deployed pervasively, it becomes by definition, impossible to avoid. I can't stop my friends getting an Alexa / Siri / Google Home thing, so I can't help coming into contact with them. We can't have it both ways. Making tech / apps / etc addictive or indispensable or "impossible to live without" (once you've had it a few weeks and so do your friends), and then asserting people can "just not use it" is contradiction 101. As a corpus of people, I think we engineers need to look much harder at the world we are building and the constraints / motivators that are causing us to do it.
- MrMember 8y ago
  "Smart speakers" are getting to be everywhere and it really makes me uncomfortable. Like if I book a hotel I now have to remember to check if one is installed so I can unplug/disable it. Or if I'm at someone's house I have to decide if I want to look like a tinfoil wearing loony and ask them to unplug it or just accept that everything I say gets sent to some remote server.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    One of the truly sad aspects of this phenomenon is that smart speakers, in principle are totally fucking cool. That's literally Star Trek technology! You have a cheery computer you can boss around! Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it. It would be one thing if the Alexa was free... but they actually charge for the thing, and they don't even develop their own apps/skills, that's on the community.
    - gitgud 8y ago
      To me it would be more concerning if the Alexa was free. I would always be wondering what the nefarious business model was (data collection, advertising...) Free as in open source would be nice though
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      > Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it. One of the big plot holes of the Star Trek universe is that money and bartering would ever go away (they ended up back tracking in a major way on this) or that anything like the Federation would ever be as benevolent or magnanimous as it is portrayed. That is, I don't think taking corporations or greed out of it will make the tech better. People are people, whether they report to the Minister of Stuff or the Chief Whatever Officer.
      - Nasrudith 8y ago
        Personally I don't see it as a plothole so much as not receiving sufficient backstory justification - or doing so not fitting the genre well. Like if the earth spent a while as a cyberpunk dystopia and had "ancestors" of Augments who had lesser issues but were used to give the elites a self-perpetuating edge writ large, disregarded space as having no profit, and refused to provide any welfare despite a pitance of their production being required to prevent horrific suffering could give justification for why the federation is so radical on certain issues and why Ferngari would consider Wall Street worthy of pilgrimage - awed that humans of all species once "bested" them. Granted that should probably be regarded with about as foreigners visiting sites of travesties to celebrate them.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        wowzerz 8y ago
        Starship Troopers had that sort of thing going on, in the sense that Heinlein portrayed the society of the novel as a militaristic, conservative authoritarian regime born out of economic turmoil of a vaguely sketched past that alluded to predecessors being too laissez faire, sloppy and permissive. On some level it was a joke shot through with distortions, deliberately inaccurate misinterpretations of history, and willful ignorance among the characters of the xenophobia’s capacity to forge bonds among the ingroup of humans volunteering to accept the burden of fighting outsiders as a gateway to other privileges. This part is glossed over with the premise of starfleet academy, or the motivating factors that impel characters toward their rank and status. So, we start to see that star trek is something of a cartoon, with “post-scarcity economics” being a deus ex machina for unlimited resources, leading to unlimited technology, leading to unlimited resources, with only a vague line connecting warp drive to first contact with vulcans, which then grants all other technologies for free as originating from alien discoveries. Anyway, I think we’re pretty close to the idea of robots doing a lot of tedious things for us, if we play our cards right, which means we start to see a lot of things essentially growing on trees. Automatic hamburger machines mean less people slaving away over a hot grill in a low paying fast food chain, which is great, but this premise of automation won’t really save us unless robots can solve the human condition end-to-end. It means we need a place to stay, clothes to wear, food and water, and something to keep us stimulated and occupied in such a way that we don’t get lonely. All this so that we can go out and find things that keep life interesting, once all our basic needs are met by default. That doesn’t seem to be where all our great inventions are taking us though. With a harsh light and a strong lens, a lot of consumer oriented inventions do nothing for anyone. Business still seems to aim at bankrupting customers and competitors alike in furtherance of bigger business. Taken to logical conclusions those coziest with successful businesses get taken care of, and it’s near total neglect everywhere else. But that doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. Really all the most extraordinary inventions have been miitary concepts. Preparing for war makes peace. Maybe that’s the proper inspiration at work here...
  - JacobJans 8y ago
    > everything I say gets sent to some remote server. Why do you think everything is recorded and sent to a remote server?
    - chj 8y ago
      That's a basic instinct of a HN reader. Since it's a blackbox, you have to assume the worst scenario.
    - tjr225 8y ago
      Why don't you think that?
- _bxg1 8y ago
  It's even more the case in China, where their big tech companies have integrated with the government. Imagine being unable to get a loan without a Facebook account, or being unable to vote without Google. It's tempting to see these trends and just cut yourself off even further; boycott Big Tech and claim that they don't affect you because you're opting-out. But we're reaching a point where that's not enough, because eventually we won't have the option to opt-out unless we do something about it now. Instead we have to engage with our society and take action in our democratic channels, to change things before they get to that point.
  - herewulf 8y ago
    Well, in the good ol' USA, gov't seems to be increasingly shifting to Twitter these days. That's more than a little disconcerting.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Concerning Facebook and Google specifically, what makes them “impossible to live without”? That would be very surprising considering I (and many others) don’t use them. Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment.
  - rapnie 8y ago
    See the siblings' comment by brundolf. In China they are implementing a system without cash, and with a social credit reputation system, where you have no choice but to use government-approved apps provided by Tencent and Alibaba and others.
  - bem94 8y ago
    So yeah, I guess they aren't "impossible" to live with out in the strictest sense. But having lived with them for some years and then going cold turkey becomes impractical to the point of impossible the next time you organise some get together and dont have a way to coordinate with a large group of people. Don't get me wrong, that is a really excellent feature of FB/Google tools, which is what keeps people around in spite of the creepyness. Like you say, lots of people get by fine without, but is that because you have never really used them so much as to become dependent on them? The world worked without the internet, but try taking it back to that place now and you'd be laughed at!
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      Why not use email or group SMS for organizing events? You can also use E2EE if needed. There are viable alternatives to Google and Facebook that don’t require giving up on technology. It’s important for people to realize that.
throwawayjava 8y ago
I think the point at the end of the article is reasonable. But the argument in the middle is a tad silly. The idea that modern annoyances (sitting in traffic, waiting in checkout lines, searching/browsing for information) are somehow essential to the human experience is super weird given that most of these things have only been around for 50ish years in their current form and less than 1,000 years in any form. If I didn't have house chores or a commute, then I could spend a lot more time learning new pieces of Mathematics. Or work through the rest of the half-finished anatomy textbook on my bookshelf. Or finally get around to building a digital simulation of a human heart. Or start a garden. Or just hang out with a coffee at the hackerspace or coffee shop or church basement. There are a lot of opportunities for serendipity, many ways to build grit, and infinite opportunities to socialize. Sitting on a 1950's style cement highway for 30 minutes to go to a mall where I stand in the 1960's style Macy's checkout line is not the end-all and be-all of what it means to be human. That lifestyle an odd cultural aberration unique to the 20th and early 21st century. The idea that doing dishes or vacuuming or driving a car in rush hour traffic are necessary to experience serendipity or frustration or boredom is a truly tyrannical vision of what it means to be human. It's certainly true that we're not headed for a tech utopia (or dystopia), and that new technologies will have unintended and probably negative consequences (in addition to positive consequences). But I'm not worried about ending commutes or killing the modern grocery shopping experience. Those things are inessential to the human experience and a net drag on society.
- 420basteit 8y ago
  However, even supposing these congestions are important to human wellbeing, the argument still fails to be compelling because it understates the development of psychological knowledge that would occur alongside the technological development. Why shouldn't the techno Utopia be able to take advantage of psychological findings to maximize happiness of humans? If the theory about congestion leading to happiness is true and empirically discoverable, then the techno Utopia can take advantage of it to increase happiness by integrating the 'best' kind of congestion possible into the lives of its human constituents. I personally agree that these congestions are inessential. They are only desirable insofar as they force people who ordinarily "live in the fast lane" to meditate, daydream, and socialize. These are actual essential activities in my opinion. When inefficiencies are removed people will actually have more time to directly focus on these things, rather than having their meditation/social time relegated to periods where they are waiting on something they should not have to.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
iamcasen 8y ago
This is such a conundrum. When I really sit down and think about all the modern tech in my life, and how much of it is a promise to make my life easier, I can't help but laugh. The modern world is far more complicated and difficult to navigate than ever before. Each new piece of tech just adds to it. Now we have to know how to navigate healthcare.gov to understand our insurance options, understand email, text, and all other smart phone etiquette. We need to know how to scan our own items at the store, how to use GPS and other touch systems in our vehicles, and know how to use multiple operating systems on computers, tablets, and other devices. It is never ending! In 20 years, I imagine most engineers and computer scientists won't really be able to understand the scope of all tech we need on a daily basis. Technology will eventually become the equivalent of a magic crystal we carry in our pocket, but have no clue what it's source of power is or how it functions. Technologists will effectively become wizards! Without those wizards, the tech-powered society would crumble into dust. The author is right that most people will effectively become automatons, mindlessly obeying the little taps and chimes of their tech-addled existence. They wouldn't have a choice of course, unless they are one of the few capable of obtaining a couple masters degrees in STEM.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > They wouldn't have a choice of course, unless they are one of the few capable of obtaining a couple masters degrees in STEM. That's already quite difficult given high specialization in IT. Even if you put hardware aside and take only software engineering, the difference between, say, kernel coding and the so-called "front-end development" is enormous. It literally takes years to master an ecosystem, and the complexity increases steadily just as we speak.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  >The author is right that most people will effectively become automatons, mindlessly obeying the little taps and chimes of their tech-addled existence. They wouldn't have a choice of course, unless they are one of the few capable of obtaining a couple masters degrees in STEM. A couple of masters degrees in STEM isn't going to save someone from having their serotonin spike when their phone vibrates. Being the blacksmith that forges the shackles doesn't make your wrists impervious to your own creations.
maerF0x0 8y ago
When technology goes well it provides tons of value and becomes invisible. Like the layers in an OS or 1000s of parts in a car for example. The complaints that life is more complex than before usually fail to compare it to the complexity of things we're accomplishing and what that could have looked like 50,500, 500 0 years ago... made up example: Communicate with someone on the other side of the planet... Now: type a message or skype, instantaneous, searchable, recorded backup... - 50 yrs ago, make an international telephone call. Its unclear, not recorded, difficult to verify(securely) who you're talking with etc. - 500 yrs ago, write, if you can, on some paper and send it via horses or merchants... who knows if its delivered or if an answer is coming - 5000 yrs ago. No. You can only talk with people in your village unless you're wealthy, royal or otherwise powerful.
- infecto 8y ago
  This makes an assumption that there is value from being able to talk to someone on the other side of the planet. I am not trying to argue that it does or does not. Just that we are operating on that assumption. I could see the counter example that a simpler life could be a more fulfilling.
  - logicchains 8y ago
    Clearly there is value to some people, as evidenced by them doing it.
- spynxic 8y ago
  Note that the capabilities introduced by telephone-based technology also presented issues that were seldom entertained by the minds of people. This was also true for the car and horse VS the mere walking traveler. Telephones/Telegrams allow for quick communication at the cost of guaranteed integrity of the information (in the case of an eavesdropper altering data in transit), at the cost of privacy and at the cost of reliability. None of these issues have to be problems faced by the users but all have the capacity to be introduced by the service providers at leisure or as a byproduct of their foresight. Telephones, telegrams, cars, horses, houses, boats, schools and governments have all brought with them new forms of dependence -- and people have thus far been able to perform cost-benefit analysis of and bring innovation to these technologies. However, it seems that today more and more people are incapable of coming to true results when performing an analysis on the integrity of today's technologies and service providers, perhaps out of naivety -- and this is likely the product of not understanding the technology well enough to move on, to develop an alternative platform, or to properly govern one's activity on the platform to mitigate perceived risks.
_bxg1 8y ago
"There’s more that matters about being human than happiness" I would go a step further and argue that happiness itself requires that friction, and can't be optimized or quantified. It's human nature to grow discontent and even depressed when given any kind of constancy for too long, no matter how "perfect". The idea that you can use social-engineering to perfect human happiness isn't just incomplete, it's fundamentally broken.
- m3mpp 8y ago
  Indeed, you say friction, I'd say contrast, we need frustration to be able to enjoy the ease, discomfort to enjoy comfort, and it goes on for all emotions. Too long in one state, and we're back to the dissatisfaction state.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  happiness... can’t be optimized or quantified Neither of these is true in my experience. Happiness definitely can be optimized by changing your lifestyle (less stressful work, more free time, a healthy diet, regular exercise, adequate sleep, etc). To see it from the other direction, consider how events like onset of chronic pain and permanent disabilities negatively impact long-term happiness.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    Obviously happiness can be increased, but it can't be solved. You can't get yourself, much less all of society, to a particular place and just say "welp, that's it, perfect happiness is achieved forever". Not with infinite resources and political power could you do this. It goes against human nature.

77 points by raleighm 8y ago

> Most people do not subscribe fully or exclusively to the ideals embedded in the smart-tech utopian vision, yet they’ll have no choice but to live by those ideals. All too true. The kinds of comment like "but they can just not use X" always appear in the context of Facebook/Google (often when they appear on HN). But that's like saying you should just "not use CCTV". I'm not a user of FB/Google/Smart Tech, it uses me, and when it is deployed pervasively, it becomes by definition, impossible to avoid. I can't stop my friends getting an Alexa / Siri / Google Home thing, so I can't help coming into contact with them. We can't have it both ways. Making tech / apps / etc addictive or indispensable or "impossible to live without" (once you've had it a few weeks and so do your friends), and then asserting people can "just not use it" is contradiction 101. As a corpus of people, I think we engineers need to look much harder at the world we are building and the constraints / motivators that are causing us to do it.

MrMember 8y ago
"Smart speakers" are getting to be everywhere and it really makes me uncomfortable. Like if I book a hotel I now have to remember to check if one is installed so I can unplug/disable it. Or if I'm at someone's house I have to decide if I want to look like a tinfoil wearing loony and ask them to unplug it or just accept that everything I say gets sent to some remote server.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  One of the truly sad aspects of this phenomenon is that smart speakers, in principle are totally fucking cool. That's literally Star Trek technology! You have a cheery computer you can boss around! Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it. It would be one thing if the Alexa was free... but they actually charge for the thing, and they don't even develop their own apps/skills, that's on the community.
  - gitgud 8y ago
    To me it would be more concerning if the Alexa was free. I would always be wondering what the nefarious business model was (data collection, advertising...) Free as in open source would be nice though
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    > Except now corporate greed had to shit all over it. One of the big plot holes of the Star Trek universe is that money and bartering would ever go away (they ended up back tracking in a major way on this) or that anything like the Federation would ever be as benevolent or magnanimous as it is portrayed. That is, I don't think taking corporations or greed out of it will make the tech better. People are people, whether they report to the Minister of Stuff or the Chief Whatever Officer.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Personally I don't see it as a plothole so much as not receiving sufficient backstory justification - or doing so not fitting the genre well. Like if the earth spent a while as a cyberpunk dystopia and had "ancestors" of Augments who had lesser issues but were used to give the elites a self-perpetuating edge writ large, disregarded space as having no profit, and refused to provide any welfare despite a pitance of their production being required to prevent horrific suffering could give justification for why the federation is so radical on certain issues and why Ferngari would consider Wall Street worthy of pilgrimage - awed that humans of all species once "bested" them. Granted that should probably be regarded with about as foreigners visiting sites of travesties to celebrate them.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - wowzerz 8y ago
        Starship Troopers had that sort of thing going on, in the sense that Heinlein portrayed the society of the novel as a militaristic, conservative authoritarian regime born out of economic turmoil of a vaguely sketched past that alluded to predecessors being too laissez faire, sloppy and permissive. On some level it was a joke shot through with distortions, deliberately inaccurate misinterpretations of history, and willful ignorance among the characters of the xenophobia’s capacity to forge bonds among the ingroup of humans volunteering to accept the burden of fighting outsiders as a gateway to other privileges. This part is glossed over with the premise of starfleet academy, or the motivating factors that impel characters toward their rank and status. So, we start to see that star trek is something of a cartoon, with “post-scarcity economics” being a deus ex machina for unlimited resources, leading to unlimited technology, leading to unlimited resources, with only a vague line connecting warp drive to first contact with vulcans, which then grants all other technologies for free as originating from alien discoveries. Anyway, I think we’re pretty close to the idea of robots doing a lot of tedious things for us, if we play our cards right, which means we start to see a lot of things essentially growing on trees. Automatic hamburger machines mean less people slaving away over a hot grill in a low paying fast food chain, which is great, but this premise of automation won’t really save us unless robots can solve the human condition end-to-end. It means we need a place to stay, clothes to wear, food and water, and something to keep us stimulated and occupied in such a way that we don’t get lonely. All this so that we can go out and find things that keep life interesting, once all our basic needs are met by default. That doesn’t seem to be where all our great inventions are taking us though. With a harsh light and a strong lens, a lot of consumer oriented inventions do nothing for anyone. Business still seems to aim at bankrupting customers and competitors alike in furtherance of bigger business. Taken to logical conclusions those coziest with successful businesses get taken care of, and it’s near total neglect everywhere else. But that doesn’t exist in a vaccuum. Really all the most extraordinary inventions have been miitary concepts. Preparing for war makes peace. Maybe that’s the proper inspiration at work here...
- JacobJans 8y ago
  > everything I say gets sent to some remote server. Why do you think everything is recorded and sent to a remote server?
  - chj 8y ago
    That's a basic instinct of a HN reader. Since it's a blackbox, you have to assume the worst scenario.
  - tjr225 8y ago
    Why don't you think that?
_bxg1 8y ago
It's even more the case in China, where their big tech companies have integrated with the government. Imagine being unable to get a loan without a Facebook account, or being unable to vote without Google. It's tempting to see these trends and just cut yourself off even further; boycott Big Tech and claim that they don't affect you because you're opting-out. But we're reaching a point where that's not enough, because eventually we won't have the option to opt-out unless we do something about it now. Instead we have to engage with our society and take action in our democratic channels, to change things before they get to that point.
- herewulf 8y ago
  Well, in the good ol' USA, gov't seems to be increasingly shifting to Twitter these days. That's more than a little disconcerting.
antidesitter 8y ago
Concerning Facebook and Google specifically, what makes them “impossible to live without”? That would be very surprising considering I (and many others) don’t use them. Not that I disagree with your overall sentiment.
- rapnie 8y ago
  See the siblings' comment by brundolf. In China they are implementing a system without cash, and with a social credit reputation system, where you have no choice but to use government-approved apps provided by Tencent and Alibaba and others.
- bem94 8y ago
  So yeah, I guess they aren't "impossible" to live with out in the strictest sense. But having lived with them for some years and then going cold turkey becomes impractical to the point of impossible the next time you organise some get together and dont have a way to coordinate with a large group of people. Don't get me wrong, that is a really excellent feature of FB/Google tools, which is what keeps people around in spite of the creepyness. Like you say, lots of people get by fine without, but is that because you have never really used them so much as to become dependent on them? The world worked without the internet, but try taking it back to that place now and you'd be laughed at!
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    Why not use email or group SMS for organizing events? You can also use E2EE if needed. There are viable alternatives to Google and Facebook that don’t require giving up on technology. It’s important for people to realize that.

throwawayjava 8y ago

I think the point at the end of the article is reasonable. But the argument in the middle is a tad silly. The idea that modern annoyances (sitting in traffic, waiting in checkout lines, searching/browsing for information) are somehow essential to the human experience is super weird given that most of these things have only been around for 50ish years in their current form and less than 1,000 years in any form. If I didn't have house chores or a commute, then I could spend a lot more time learning new pieces of Mathematics. Or work through the rest of the half-finished anatomy textbook on my bookshelf. Or finally get around to building a digital simulation of a human heart. Or start a garden. Or just hang out with a coffee at the hackerspace or coffee shop or church basement. There are a lot of opportunities for serendipity, many ways to build grit, and infinite opportunities to socialize. Sitting on a 1950's style cement highway for 30 minutes to go to a mall where I stand in the 1960's style Macy's checkout line is not the end-all and be-all of what it means to be human. That lifestyle an odd cultural aberration unique to the 20th and early 21st century. The idea that doing dishes or vacuuming or driving a car in rush hour traffic are necessary to experience serendipity or frustration or boredom is a truly tyrannical vision of what it means to be human. It's certainly true that we're not headed for a tech utopia (or dystopia), and that new technologies will have unintended and probably negative consequences (in addition to positive consequences). But I'm not worried about ending commutes or killing the modern grocery shopping experience. Those things are inessential to the human experience and a net drag on society.

420basteit 8y ago
However, even supposing these congestions are important to human wellbeing, the argument still fails to be compelling because it understates the development of psychological knowledge that would occur alongside the technological development. Why shouldn't the techno Utopia be able to take advantage of psychological findings to maximize happiness of humans? If the theory about congestion leading to happiness is true and empirically discoverable, then the techno Utopia can take advantage of it to increase happiness by integrating the 'best' kind of congestion possible into the lives of its human constituents. I personally agree that these congestions are inessential. They are only desirable insofar as they force people who ordinarily "live in the fast lane" to meditate, daydream, and socialize. These are actual essential activities in my opinion. When inefficiencies are removed people will actually have more time to directly focus on these things, rather than having their meditation/social time relegated to periods where they are waiting on something they should not have to.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

iamcasen 8y ago

This is such a conundrum. When I really sit down and think about all the modern tech in my life, and how much of it is a promise to make my life easier, I can't help but laugh. The modern world is far more complicated and difficult to navigate than ever before. Each new piece of tech just adds to it. Now we have to know how to navigate healthcare.gov to understand our insurance options, understand email, text, and all other smart phone etiquette. We need to know how to scan our own items at the store, how to use GPS and other touch systems in our vehicles, and know how to use multiple operating systems on computers, tablets, and other devices. It is never ending! In 20 years, I imagine most engineers and computer scientists won't really be able to understand the scope of all tech we need on a daily basis. Technology will eventually become the equivalent of a magic crystal we carry in our pocket, but have no clue what it's source of power is or how it functions. Technologists will effectively become wizards! Without those wizards, the tech-powered society would crumble into dust. The author is right that most people will effectively become automatons, mindlessly obeying the little taps and chimes of their tech-addled existence. They wouldn't have a choice of course, unless they are one of the few capable of obtaining a couple masters degrees in STEM.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> They wouldn't have a choice of course, unless they are one of the few capable of obtaining a couple masters degrees in STEM. That's already quite difficult given high specialization in IT. Even if you put hardware aside and take only software engineering, the difference between, say, kernel coding and the so-called "front-end development" is enormous. It literally takes years to master an ecosystem, and the complexity increases steadily just as we speak.
ABCLAW 8y ago
>The author is right that most people will effectively become automatons, mindlessly obeying the little taps and chimes of their tech-addled existence. They wouldn't have a choice of course, unless they are one of the few capable of obtaining a couple masters degrees in STEM. A couple of masters degrees in STEM isn't going to save someone from having their serotonin spike when their phone vibrates. Being the blacksmith that forges the shackles doesn't make your wrists impervious to your own creations.

maerF0x0 8y ago

When technology goes well it provides tons of value and becomes invisible. Like the layers in an OS or 1000s of parts in a car for example. The complaints that life is more complex than before usually fail to compare it to the complexity of things we're accomplishing and what that could have looked like 50,500, 500 0 years ago... made up example: Communicate with someone on the other side of the planet... Now: type a message or skype, instantaneous, searchable, recorded backup... - 50 yrs ago, make an international telephone call. Its unclear, not recorded, difficult to verify(securely) who you're talking with etc. - 500 yrs ago, write, if you can, on some paper and send it via horses or merchants... who knows if its delivered or if an answer is coming - 5000 yrs ago. No. You can only talk with people in your village unless you're wealthy, royal or otherwise powerful.

infecto 8y ago
This makes an assumption that there is value from being able to talk to someone on the other side of the planet. I am not trying to argue that it does or does not. Just that we are operating on that assumption. I could see the counter example that a simpler life could be a more fulfilling.
- logicchains 8y ago
  Clearly there is value to some people, as evidenced by them doing it.
spynxic 8y ago
Note that the capabilities introduced by telephone-based technology also presented issues that were seldom entertained by the minds of people. This was also true for the car and horse VS the mere walking traveler. Telephones/Telegrams allow for quick communication at the cost of guaranteed integrity of the information (in the case of an eavesdropper altering data in transit), at the cost of privacy and at the cost of reliability. None of these issues have to be problems faced by the users but all have the capacity to be introduced by the service providers at leisure or as a byproduct of their foresight. Telephones, telegrams, cars, horses, houses, boats, schools and governments have all brought with them new forms of dependence -- and people have thus far been able to perform cost-benefit analysis of and bring innovation to these technologies. However, it seems that today more and more people are incapable of coming to true results when performing an analysis on the integrity of today's technologies and service providers, perhaps out of naivety -- and this is likely the product of not understanding the technology well enough to move on, to develop an alternative platform, or to properly govern one's activity on the platform to mitigate perceived risks.

_bxg1 8y ago

"There’s more that matters about being human than happiness" I would go a step further and argue that happiness itself requires that friction, and can't be optimized or quantified. It's human nature to grow discontent and even depressed when given any kind of constancy for too long, no matter how "perfect". The idea that you can use social-engineering to perfect human happiness isn't just incomplete, it's fundamentally broken.

m3mpp 8y ago
Indeed, you say friction, I'd say contrast, we need frustration to be able to enjoy the ease, discomfort to enjoy comfort, and it goes on for all emotions. Too long in one state, and we're back to the dissatisfaction state.
antidesitter 8y ago
happiness... can’t be optimized or quantified Neither of these is true in my experience. Happiness definitely can be optimized by changing your lifestyle (less stressful work, more free time, a healthy diet, regular exercise, adequate sleep, etc). To see it from the other direction, consider how events like onset of chronic pain and permanent disabilities negatively impact long-term happiness.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Obviously happiness can be increased, but it can't be solved. You can't get yourself, much less all of society, to a particular place and just say "welp, that's it, perfect happiness is achieved forever". Not with infinite resources and political power could you do this. It goes against human nature.