3 ms·

But why do we need to make collective decisions about technology? Why can't I decide for myself based on what I see and think? Why is it better if somebody else

But why do we need to make collective decisions about technology? Why can't I decide for myself based on what I see and think? Why is it better if somebody else decides for me? The beauty of a society that embraces individual choice is that the individual gets to choose. You can let somebody else decide for you, but you can also go against them. The article loses me on this point as well. Any individual can look at the effects a technology has on those around them and decide not to participate. Does that mean you're left behind? Yeah, but the Amish face the same problem anyway. The one advantage the Amish have is that their 'eccentric' choices are seen as more valid and respected compared to an individual making those choices. But I think that's more of a failing of our modern culture not respecting individual rights as much.

LunaSea 5y ago
Countries can't defend themselves and thus exist if they don't have a strong military force and a strong economy. Said strong economy being most of the time directly linked to the technology level of the country.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Sure, but I, as an individual, don't have to follow along. If I don't want a TV I don't have to get one. If I want a TV I should be able to get one. It shouldn't be my government or community saying that I have to get one or that I can't get one.
  - zepto 5y ago
    What if you want to transmit TV?
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      That is a different matter since the airwaves are a scarce resource that can't be used by everyone at the same moment, therefore it has to be regulated somehow. As an example, take the FM radio spectrum from 88 to 108 MHz; each channel has to be separated 100KHz from the next and previous ones, therefore one can have maximum 10 stations in 1 MHz, and that spectrum is 20MHz wide. The total is 200 "slots" in which fit all transmitters. Now thankfully at these frequencies radio waves don't propagate easily beyond line of sight, compared to HF which benefits from ground wave and sky wave propagation (allowing for example foreign stations reception), so -roughly- each moderately distant city can have its own 200 frequencies free of interference from the next city (state, country). Still, we have only 200 possible stations in a place where there could be thousands of people willing to set up their FM radio, which of course is not possible. Hence the need to regulate the resource.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Are you sure it is a different matter? The value of a TV is completely dependent on who can broadcast. “Saying if I want a TV I should be able to buy one.” is a meaningless comment on freedom given that broadcasting is regulated. The government doesn’t have to control who can buy TVs if it controls who can broadcast.
  - LunaSea 5y ago
    Not wanting a TV is one thing. But if you don't want say a gun but then profit from an army that does use guns that does sound a bit hypocritical.
zepto 5y ago
> But why do we need to make collective decisions about technology? Why can't I decide for myself based on what I see and think? Why is it better if somebody else decides for me? You can decide for yourself, but most technology is social, and so it matters quite a bit whether other people make similar decisions to you.

LunaSea 5y ago

Countries can't defend themselves and thus exist if they don't have a strong military force and a strong economy. Said strong economy being most of the time directly linked to the technology level of the country.

Aerroon 5y ago
Sure, but I, as an individual, don't have to follow along. If I don't want a TV I don't have to get one. If I want a TV I should be able to get one. It shouldn't be my government or community saying that I have to get one or that I can't get one.
- zepto 5y ago
  What if you want to transmit TV?
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    That is a different matter since the airwaves are a scarce resource that can't be used by everyone at the same moment, therefore it has to be regulated somehow. As an example, take the FM radio spectrum from 88 to 108 MHz; each channel has to be separated 100KHz from the next and previous ones, therefore one can have maximum 10 stations in 1 MHz, and that spectrum is 20MHz wide. The total is 200 "slots" in which fit all transmitters. Now thankfully at these frequencies radio waves don't propagate easily beyond line of sight, compared to HF which benefits from ground wave and sky wave propagation (allowing for example foreign stations reception), so -roughly- each moderately distant city can have its own 200 frequencies free of interference from the next city (state, country). Still, we have only 200 possible stations in a place where there could be thousands of people willing to set up their FM radio, which of course is not possible. Hence the need to regulate the resource.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Are you sure it is a different matter? The value of a TV is completely dependent on who can broadcast. “Saying if I want a TV I should be able to buy one.” is a meaningless comment on freedom given that broadcasting is regulated. The government doesn’t have to control who can buy TVs if it controls who can broadcast.
- LunaSea 5y ago
  Not wanting a TV is one thing. But if you don't want say a gun but then profit from an army that does use guns that does sound a bit hypocritical.

zepto 5y ago

> But why do we need to make collective decisions about technology? Why can't I decide for myself based on what I see and think? Why is it better if somebody else decides for me? You can decide for yourself, but most technology is social, and so it matters quite a bit whether other people make similar decisions to you.