5 ms·

I had a lot more respect for Fuller before I learned about his "don't try to change behavior, technology will fix the problem" approach to nearly every societal

I had a lot more respect for Fuller before I learned about his "don't try to change behavior, technology will fix the problem" approach to nearly every societal ill including climate change.

_yb2s 4y ago
I don't think that's a fair characterization of his concept (which he called ephemeralization), e.g. "to do more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing." He was critical of the lack of effectiveness of politics, arguing that energy put into it is unlikely to result in any real change. He showed that one could promote a radical new technological idea, and be seen as a non-threatening 'out of touch nerd' to all sides of a contentious political issue like climate change. This allows you to build cultural momentum and funding towards a solution and avoid the polarizing gridlock of politics. He absolutely intended to radically change behavior, by replacing our current way of doing things with a very different better way, that uses less resources. Not just the same thing somehow miraculously not problematic. Summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization This is a different idea than blind technological optimism, although they seem similar on the surface.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  Am I wrong to think that there's a very strong, quiet, deliberate push against anything 'idealist' or 'utopian', more and more? It feels like I'm seeing a lot of articles lately that get deep thinkers quite wrong, or which use their personal character flaws to invalidate their ideas. Nuance as a concept seems to be dying more now even than under Trump, and it feels artificial. Deliberately instigated. ... Am I being overly paro here?
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    > Am I being overly paro here? No, I think you’re picking up on something I’ve observed as well. It seems like trying to look deeper into nuances and subtleties is, more often than a few years ago, dismissed as wishy washy or equivocations rather than an attempt to understand and enumerate true complexities. I think this started before the Trump era, but the the political all-or-nothing polarization that has followed since then seems to bleed over into even non political things.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > dismissed as wishy washy or equivocations Pseudo/non-scientific is one of the more popular beliefs out there, and is often quite ironic if one considers how the abilities of science has increased over time.
  - _yb2s 4y ago
    > It feels like I'm seeing a lot of articles lately that get deep thinkers quite wrong, or which use their personal character flaws to invalidate their ideas. I completely agree... it's very frustrating seeing this happen to many thinkers that had a strong influence on me. I've recently seen similar 'takedowns' of Thoreau, Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Kipling, and many others that grossly misrepresent the ideas these people had, mention some personal failings, and then conclude that these people did nothing of value. It's incredible that people writing these articles feel entitled to write a dismissal/rebuttal of a deep thinker, when they haven't even taken the time to understand the ideas.
  - clarionbell 4y ago
    I have the same feeling. Although, tbh, to me it seems that it has been going on for a while. Maybe over a decade or so. Sort of post-modern nihilism and obsession with negative. World is changing, but it doesn't seem to be improving for many. And if you suggest that the direction is wrong, you are accused of being reactionary or worse.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Retric 4y ago
Seems like a reasonable argument. Technology is doing vastly more for climate change than behavior.
- analog31 4y ago
  Also, technology is changing behavior.
  - Retric 4y ago
    In what way? An end user can’t tell if electricity came from a wind farm or a coal power plant.
    - analog31 4y ago
      One way is if technology creates new things that influence culture, such as the automobile, or makes things abundant that were relatively scarce before, such as industrial meat production. We're burning fossil fuels because we figured out the technology to mine and use them.
rglover 4y ago
It's an extremely reasonable POV considering that he doesn't exclude human behavior as a variable. Unfortunately, most CC extremists do this to such a degree that their arguments are laughable/psychologically concerning. People aren't going to (and frankly, shouldn't have to if there's an option/solution) dial back their lifestyle unless they're forced at the barrel of a gun or it happens by circumstance. That it's even possible to rely on technology as a solution is a good thing and makes sense. Why make life miserable if you don't have to? And to be clear: we absolutely don't. Any miserable outcome is redirecting technology away from a solution (e.g., safe, abundant nuclear energy) towards technocratic authoritariaism (digital IDs, CBDCs, etc) and other psychopathic control systems that rely on extreme subjugation of human beings.
II2II 4y ago
> I had a lot more respect for Fuller before I learned about his "don't try to change behavior, technology will fix the problem" approach Perhaps that view is correct, it is just that most of the people who subscribe to this philosophy are trying to solve different problems (e.g. to accrue wealth and power) while most of the people who abhor that attitude have effectively abdicated control over some of the most powerful tools to instigate change. The reality is that you cannot change the behaviour of other people. All that you can do is add stimuli to encourage positive behaviours and remove stimuli that encourages negative behaviours. Technology is simply one of the tools in the toolbox.

I had a lot more respect for Fuller before I learned about his "don't try to change behavior, technology will fix the problem" approach to nearly every societal ill including climate change.

_yb2s 4y ago

I don't think that's a fair characterization of his concept (which he called ephemeralization), e.g. "to do more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing." He was critical of the lack of effectiveness of politics, arguing that energy put into it is unlikely to result in any real change. He showed that one could promote a radical new technological idea, and be seen as a non-threatening 'out of touch nerd' to all sides of a contentious political issue like climate change. This allows you to build cultural momentum and funding towards a solution and avoid the polarizing gridlock of politics. He absolutely intended to radically change behavior, by replacing our current way of doing things with a very different better way, that uses less resources. Not just the same thing somehow miraculously not problematic. Summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization This is a different idea than blind technological optimism, although they seem similar on the surface.

mandmandam 4y ago
Am I wrong to think that there's a very strong, quiet, deliberate push against anything 'idealist' or 'utopian', more and more? It feels like I'm seeing a lot of articles lately that get deep thinkers quite wrong, or which use their personal character flaws to invalidate their ideas. Nuance as a concept seems to be dying more now even than under Trump, and it feels artificial. Deliberately instigated. ... Am I being overly paro here?
- ineedasername 4y ago
  > Am I being overly paro here? No, I think you’re picking up on something I’ve observed as well. It seems like trying to look deeper into nuances and subtleties is, more often than a few years ago, dismissed as wishy washy or equivocations rather than an attempt to understand and enumerate true complexities. I think this started before the Trump era, but the the political all-or-nothing polarization that has followed since then seems to bleed over into even non political things.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > dismissed as wishy washy or equivocations Pseudo/non-scientific is one of the more popular beliefs out there, and is often quite ironic if one considers how the abilities of science has increased over time.
- _yb2s 4y ago
  > It feels like I'm seeing a lot of articles lately that get deep thinkers quite wrong, or which use their personal character flaws to invalidate their ideas. I completely agree... it's very frustrating seeing this happen to many thinkers that had a strong influence on me. I've recently seen similar 'takedowns' of Thoreau, Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Kipling, and many others that grossly misrepresent the ideas these people had, mention some personal failings, and then conclude that these people did nothing of value. It's incredible that people writing these articles feel entitled to write a dismissal/rebuttal of a deep thinker, when they haven't even taken the time to understand the ideas.
- clarionbell 4y ago
  I have the same feeling. Although, tbh, to me it seems that it has been going on for a while. Maybe over a decade or so. Sort of post-modern nihilism and obsession with negative. World is changing, but it doesn't seem to be improving for many. And if you suggest that the direction is wrong, you are accused of being reactionary or worse.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Retric 4y ago

Seems like a reasonable argument. Technology is doing vastly more for climate change than behavior.

analog31 4y ago
Also, technology is changing behavior.
- Retric 4y ago
  In what way? An end user can’t tell if electricity came from a wind farm or a coal power plant.
  - analog31 4y ago
    One way is if technology creates new things that influence culture, such as the automobile, or makes things abundant that were relatively scarce before, such as industrial meat production. We're burning fossil fuels because we figured out the technology to mine and use them.

rglover 4y ago

It's an extremely reasonable POV considering that he doesn't exclude human behavior as a variable. Unfortunately, most CC extremists do this to such a degree that their arguments are laughable/psychologically concerning. People aren't going to (and frankly, shouldn't have to if there's an option/solution) dial back their lifestyle unless they're forced at the barrel of a gun or it happens by circumstance. That it's even possible to rely on technology as a solution is a good thing and makes sense. Why make life miserable if you don't have to? And to be clear: we absolutely don't. Any miserable outcome is redirecting technology away from a solution (e.g., safe, abundant nuclear energy) towards technocratic authoritariaism (digital IDs, CBDCs, etc) and other psychopathic control systems that rely on extreme subjugation of human beings.

II2II 4y ago

> I had a lot more respect for Fuller before I learned about his "don't try to change behavior, technology will fix the problem" approach Perhaps that view is correct, it is just that most of the people who subscribe to this philosophy are trying to solve different problems (e.g. to accrue wealth and power) while most of the people who abhor that attitude have effectively abdicated control over some of the most powerful tools to instigate change. The reality is that you cannot change the behaviour of other people. All that you can do is add stimuli to encourage positive behaviours and remove stimuli that encourages negative behaviours. Technology is simply one of the tools in the toolbox.