3 ms·

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 yo

by _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.

by _yb2s 4y ago

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.