3 ms·
"Computers, like any means of production, are only furthering inequality in the world" 1) 'Means of production' do not arbitrarily further inequality. The Indu
by jariel 6y ago
"Computers, like any means of production, are only furthering inequality in the world"
1) 'Means of production' do not arbitrarily further inequality. The Industrial Revolution, which we may very well be still living through (ask a historian in 500 years ...) smashed the old class systems and enabled standards of living unheard of before.
2) 'Tech' is in its infancy, the measured surpluses i.e profits are going into the hands of the 0.1% but consumer surpluses are huge. The value of the things we can buy today are immensely greater than before. I play a free video game that has provided me with countless hours of entertainment. From 'older tech': I get this amazing stuff called 'electricity' out of my walls and literally fresh water (hot and cold!) for literally pennies - this is revolutionary. You can live better than a Roman Emperor by shopping exclusively at Walmart.
3) A few billion people have come out of 'extreme poverty' in the last 40 years, as basic material prosperity reaches every corner of the planet. Computing has been part of that. Despite our own ugly inequality, and all the ugly externalities (pollution etc.) - we shouldn't denigrate this fact: having 'a roof, food, the ability to communicate with people at a distance, basic medicine/healthcare, basic rule of law' ... this is heaven compared to any situation their ancestors would have lived in.
Computing is as worthwhile as we want to make it, much like most other things.
- umvi 6y ago> we shouldn't denigrate this fact: having 'a roof, food, the ability to communicate with people at a distance, basic medicine/healthcare, basic rule of law' ... this is heaven compared to any situation their ancestors would have lived in. It's only heaven compared to how it was before. If you are born under the current system, you don't know what it's like to have lived in a worse time. So while our ancestors are probably astounded at our prosperity, having tasted the before/after, someone born now will not be grateful, because they don't have a hellish alternative to compare it to (besides people in other countries). This "relativity" extends to other areas too, not just poverty. For example... torture. For our ancestors, torture meant having your spine stretch until it broke or being stuck in an iron box filled with spikes or being starved and beaten and stuffed in a tiny locker or any number of horrifically macabre prospects. Now torture is "being alone in a room". I'm not downplaying the psychological damage of solitary confinement, but relative to the torture POWs went through or the torture methods used in medieval times, solitary confinement almost seems like a reward. The standard by which we gauge poverty, torture, happiness, etc. shifts as society improves.
- froasty 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
- jariel 6y agoSo I see your point, but it's not purely relative. There is an existential jump when going from starvation and oppression to having basic means. Going from basic means to 'advanced means' is much less of a jump. Life was brutal 200 years ago for almost everyone, and it's simply not brutal now. So yes, overall, I understand that in 100 years, people will find it hard to fathom 'how we lived' but really, I think that all future humans could handle living in our era without to much problem.