4 ms·

>Don't yell at people doing something to help (as it happens, probably the _only_ way they know to help) because some other people, with some other expertise, c

>Don't yell at people doing something to help (as it happens, probably the _only_ way they know to help) because some other people, with some other expertise, could theoretically do it differently/better/more human. This seems to rest on the premise that doing something is always better than doing nothing, which may actually not be the case. It's possible that the "solution" just makes things worse/complicates implementing better, longer-term solutions. The "_only_ way they know to help" part especially raises red flags, because it's exactly that narrow-mindedness and ignorance of context and alternatives that leads to "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" thinking. A big problem with "technosolutionism", as the article calls it, is precisely people forcing complex social, political, economic, cultural, etc. problems into the technical paradigms with which they are familiar, and then attempting to solve those problems as if they were technical or engineering issues.

yepguy 6y ago
> It's possible that the "solution" just makes things worse/complicates implementing better, longer-term solutions. I would go further, and suggest that nearly all social interventions make things worse. Extreme caution is especially necessary if the intervention is top-down.
curiousllama 6y ago
> This seems to rest on the premise that doing something is always better than doing nothing Not always, just often. Typically, smart people trying hard to help end up helping. This is my point: you're saying "stop trying to help if you're not capable of totally solving the problem." Giving one piece of a super complicated puzzle is a legit contribution. Imagine I build "Uber for Food Banks." Instead of a physical food bank, you punch in that app "I need help this month" and someone delivers food to you for free. Imagine it takes off and triples the amount of food aid in the US. This technosolution completely, 100% ignores the "complex, social political, economic, cultural etc." components of food insecurity. It won't solve the problem. A valid critique is: "Because social services beyond food are serendipitously delivered through traditional food bank infra, you need to help sustain the traditional infra while expanding the delivery, even if the infra may look different (e.g., transform into medical clinics)." A bad critique is: "Because social services beyond food are serendipitously delivered through traditional food bank infra, you shouldn't build Uber for Food Banks." Rich people don't get to look at a problem and say "the only solution is a perfect solution." Help how you can, dude.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" may also be relevant here. By all means, criticize proposals to help weed out those that are truly bad and to refine those with problems into something better, but don't rule them out entirely because they don't check every box. Obviously every situation is different and cost-to-benefit must always be weighed, but I think it's often better to implement an imperfect solution while waiting on something better.
closeparen 6y ago
>complicates implementing better, longer-term solutions. The problem is that nobody is actually implementing them. Comprehensive public housing doesn't exist. There are no construction sites, there is no program, there is no money, there is no will. It's just talk. The only time it has a real impact on anyone's housing situation is when it's the reason to block a private development and maintain status quo. Comprehensive public transit doesn't exist. The agency is in year 5 of 10 for community consultations about adding 1.5 more miles of joke to the pile of jokes. We know how fast it can expand and what it costs. Becoming remotely as useful as TNCs or scooters or whatever would take 3 generations to build and consume the entire productive capacity of 5. Everyone knows this, which is why no one is seriously trying. The realest that the proposal will ever be is when it is listed as the rationale for blocking scooters/TNCs/whatever. Credibility on the right way to solve a problem is earned through progress. The "real solution" people will say they don't have the capital needed to make progress. Well, part of being a real solution is having a workable funding story. If the opposition is reliably defeating attempts to fund it, there you go. Not a real solution.

yepguy 6y ago

> It's possible that the "solution" just makes things worse/complicates implementing better, longer-term solutions. I would go further, and suggest that nearly all social interventions make things worse. Extreme caution is especially necessary if the intervention is top-down.

curiousllama 6y ago

> This seems to rest on the premise that doing something is always better than doing nothing Not always, just often. Typically, smart people trying hard to help end up helping. This is my point: you're saying "stop trying to help if you're not capable of totally solving the problem." Giving one piece of a super complicated puzzle is a legit contribution. Imagine I build "Uber for Food Banks." Instead of a physical food bank, you punch in that app "I need help this month" and someone delivers food to you for free. Imagine it takes off and triples the amount of food aid in the US. This technosolution completely, 100% ignores the "complex, social political, economic, cultural etc." components of food insecurity. It won't solve the problem. A valid critique is: "Because social services beyond food are serendipitously delivered through traditional food bank infra, you need to help sustain the traditional infra while expanding the delivery, even if the infra may look different (e.g., transform into medical clinics)." A bad critique is: "Because social services beyond food are serendipitously delivered through traditional food bank infra, you shouldn't build Uber for Food Banks." Rich people don't get to look at a problem and say "the only solution is a perfect solution." Help how you can, dude.

kitsunesoba 6y ago
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" may also be relevant here. By all means, criticize proposals to help weed out those that are truly bad and to refine those with problems into something better, but don't rule them out entirely because they don't check every box. Obviously every situation is different and cost-to-benefit must always be weighed, but I think it's often better to implement an imperfect solution while waiting on something better.

closeparen 6y ago

>complicates implementing better, longer-term solutions. The problem is that nobody is actually implementing them. Comprehensive public housing doesn't exist. There are no construction sites, there is no program, there is no money, there is no will. It's just talk. The only time it has a real impact on anyone's housing situation is when it's the reason to block a private development and maintain status quo. Comprehensive public transit doesn't exist. The agency is in year 5 of 10 for community consultations about adding 1.5 more miles of joke to the pile of jokes. We know how fast it can expand and what it costs. Becoming remotely as useful as TNCs or scooters or whatever would take 3 generations to build and consume the entire productive capacity of 5. Everyone knows this, which is why no one is seriously trying. The realest that the proposal will ever be is when it is listed as the rationale for blocking scooters/TNCs/whatever. Credibility on the right way to solve a problem is earned through progress. The "real solution" people will say they don't have the capital needed to make progress. Well, part of being a real solution is having a workable funding story. If the opposition is reliably defeating attempts to fund it, there you go. Not a real solution.