4 ms·

> The crux of the matter is that social problems are never just technical, but always at least in part human. I would revise that further: social problems are

> The crux of the matter is that social problems are never just technical, but always at least in part human. I would revise that further: social problems are never technical; they are primary political. That we are, in most western countries, rich enough to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone doesn't mean we will/can, if the political will doesn't exist to implement it. Technology can be used to simplify the implementation, but you have to solve the politics and policy challenges first. This fact isn't strictly a negative, either, although it's usually a lot harder to make the case that we should do something, as opposed to how we could do it.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
One trick technology can do for political aspects is to offer options[0]. Whether or not politicians choose to do something is not really up to engineers, but we can try to make desirable decisions easier to make, by offering more, cheaper and better options for implementing them. This is a double-edged sword, of course, as a lot of damage to society and environment has been done by technologies creating - often unintentionally - easy options for undesirable behavior. Optimizing internal combustion engines had that side effect, so did optimizing production of plastics. One big argument against adtech surveillance is based around precisely that: it may be mostly harmless now, but it creates cheap and easy options for government abuse. -- [0] - Not my idea; something I stole from Saul Griffith[1], via Bret Victor[2]. [1] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/saul-griffiths-fascinating-ideas-about-the-future-of-energy-4470540/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/saul-griffiths-fas... [2] - http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
cmiller1 8y ago
You also bring up a good argument in favor of supporting the social sciences. Often times the arguments against providing a minimum standard of living boil down to "but if we give people things they won't have any incentive to work hard to get them themselves!" Is that true? Maybe, probably not, we can't really know unless studies are done and we work out the facts.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

One trick technology can do for political aspects is to offer options[0]. Whether or not politicians choose to do something is not really up to engineers, but we can try to make desirable decisions easier to make, by offering more, cheaper and better options for implementing them. This is a double-edged sword, of course, as a lot of damage to society and environment has been done by technologies creating - often unintentionally - easy options for undesirable behavior. Optimizing internal combustion engines had that side effect, so did optimizing production of plastics. One big argument against adtech surveillance is based around precisely that: it may be mostly harmless now, but it creates cheap and easy options for government abuse. -- [0] - Not my idea; something I stole from Saul Griffith[1], via Bret Victor[2]. [1] - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/saul-griffiths-fascinating-ideas-about-the-future-of-energy-4470540/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/saul-griffiths-fas... [2] - http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/

cmiller1 8y ago

You also bring up a good argument in favor of supporting the social sciences. Often times the arguments against providing a minimum standard of living boil down to "but if we give people things they won't have any incentive to work hard to get them themselves!" Is that true? Maybe, probably not, we can't really know unless studies are done and we work out the facts.