3 ms·

This article kind of highlights what I despise about the modern economy and technology: tech used to be about solving hard problems that made human life better.

This article kind of highlights what I despise about the modern economy and technology: tech used to be about solving hard problems that made human life better. I'm extremely grateful for my refrigerator so I can have fresh food on demand, my dishwasher, washing machine and dryer to save me from some drudgery, etc. But I feel like the vast majority of consumer tech these days falls in one of two camps: 1. It's there simply to addict us. Tobacco companies saw they had a gold mine with nicotine, and realized they could make food similarly addictive (and ultimately lethal in the long term). But it's not just tobacco companies: social media, "fast fashion", many types of entertainment, etc., don't do us really any good beyond a quick dopamine fix and are ultimately harmful to us. 2. It exists simply to deal with the complexity of systems we've set up in the first place. I think of all the fin tech and health tech startups that exist because so many of our financial and especially healthcare systems are insanely complex. As someone who was a big techno optimist in the late 90s, I admit it's pretty depressing sometimes to think that the work you do is not ultimately helpful.

digging 3y ago
> 2. It exists simply to deal with the complexity of systems we've set up in the first place. I think of all the fin tech and health tech startups that exist because so many of our financial and especially healthcare systems are insanely complex. This one really bothers me too, having worked in the healthcare industry. There is an entire class of business the "does good" by helping people navigate an intentionally hostile system. And those businesses therefore profit off the hostility of the system. It is an abusive relationship.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > There is an entire class of business the "does good" by helping people navigate an intentionally hostile system. Yeah, I'm currently in this boat, and it hurts a bit when I think about it too much sometimes. That is, I tell myself "OK, you're not curing cancer, but you're helping make a shitty system less shitty for people who need to navigate it." And that is true. But I do acknowledge that a much better solution would just be to fix the underlying problem in the first place, and I admit that my company is just profiting off the unnecessary complexity that exists to begin with.
  - meristohm 3y ago
    I appreciate that you recognize this and are not just rationalizing to protect yourself. Still, survival is a natural drive. It also feels natural to seek work that fits one's values and gives enough of a sense of meaning to life. I found this in K-12 education and now in parenting, which will have a long tail since our child has extra needs due to disabilities. I have the freedom to pick up some extra work now that school started (my spouse has a full-time job she feels good about), and this work aligns with my values but is not particularly lucrative. I use the public library for most of my entertainment and education (thank you, taxpayers of the USA; this is one of our best investments for the future), and I feel rich in non-monetary ways. All that to say- make the jump to something you feel good about doing! Edit to add: Easily-consumed media (phone games, video shorts, social media posts, etc):books and movies from the public library::highly-processed food:homemade food from your garden or local farm; these wholesome things can be difficult to get in the habit of, but they feel more than momentarily good.
tech_ken 3y ago
> tech used to be about solving hard problems that made human life better It's unclear to me when this was ever "purely" true. Tobacco companies, for example, definitely used cutting-edge (for its era) agro-tech to increase yields, potency, etc since like the 1950s and earlier. Tech has been developing weapons, addictive substances, and useless consumer goods since the industrial revolution (at least). The history of technology is chock-full of abominations. For every "refrigerator" there's "holes in the ozone layer", for every "golden rice" there's "Agent Orange". I 100% agree that modern consumer society is absolutely out of control, and that tech is a major driver, but I see this as an intensification/elaboration of trends that have been in place for centuries rather than a paradigm shift from a previously benign era. As much as I love the various cultural trappings of 90s tech-optimism (and I do love many things about that era) I think it was ultimately kind of a delusion brought on by the complete global dominance of the US economic model (following the end of the Cold War), alongside the headiness of the dot-com bubble, rather than a clear-sighted vision for the future of "technology" (wherever you draw the line on what that is). Not trying to shame anyone who participated in that scene, or say that it was "bad" or "wrong", but I do think that we can't really afford to be sentimental these days. We need to honestly assess the shortfalls of the movements that brought us here.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Tobacco companies, for example, definitely used cutting-edge (for its era) agro-tech to increase yields, potency, etc since like the 1950s and earlier. The invention of the automatic cigarette rolling machine was a huge step.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  To emphasize, I agree with you. I don't think "back in the good ol' days" that things were always benevolent, nor do I believe that today that things are always evil. But I do think it's a mistake to say this is just another step, or going from an "8 to a 9". I think this idea that so much of our technology is actively hostile is a part of the puzzle around why many people feel that our pace of real technological advancement and our ability to build big projects has slowed greatly (Patrick Collison has a great blog piece, https://patrickcollison.com/fast https://patrickcollison.com/fast) I feel part of this is a consequence of the fact that we've gotten so good at data analysis, when you look at 2 alternatives and one shows an immediate, clear payoff (but the downsides are long term and not all that clear), while the other shows a riskier, longer term payoff, we (collectively) nearly always go with the short term win. E.g we can see with A/B testing what keeps people the most "engaged", but we just kind of ignore that this "engagement" is with the lowest common denominator of content like rage-inducing tribalism.
harpooniker 3y ago
Tech is about anything people use it for. Why not focus on the company that did this than an entire industry of tech
- banannaise 3y ago
  It is very convenient for bad actors to insist on a game of whac-a-mole rather than a reckoning with the larger problem that seems to govern the behavior of a large number of significant companies.
  - harpooniker 3y ago
    Because that implies a large number of companies are conspiring together without evidence
    - banannaise 3y ago
      The idea of a systemic issue is that an underlying factor is encouraging/inducing bad behavior, not that everyone conspires to perform the bad behavior together (although it certainly doesn't discourage them if everyone else is doing it too).
avgcorrection 3y ago
Tech downsides (?) has always been with us since the Industrial Revolution. Like workers being forced by circumstance to work 12 hour days with no rights. Then some of them having to die to get any rights whatsoever. Marketing also isn't new (“these days”). Smoking was marketed to women as “freedom sticks”. There never was a time when we were all playing on the same team and trying to eventually colonize the Galaxy.
- Nasrudith 3y ago
  To be a smartass weren't the 12 hour days also the norm in agriculture? Working sun up to sunset as a norm.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    To be a smartass agricultural workload is inherently seasonal.

digging 3y ago

> 2. It exists simply to deal with the complexity of systems we've set up in the first place. I think of all the fin tech and health tech startups that exist because so many of our financial and especially healthcare systems are insanely complex. This one really bothers me too, having worked in the healthcare industry. There is an entire class of business the "does good" by helping people navigate an intentionally hostile system. And those businesses therefore profit off the hostility of the system. It is an abusive relationship.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> There is an entire class of business the "does good" by helping people navigate an intentionally hostile system. Yeah, I'm currently in this boat, and it hurts a bit when I think about it too much sometimes. That is, I tell myself "OK, you're not curing cancer, but you're helping make a shitty system less shitty for people who need to navigate it." And that is true. But I do acknowledge that a much better solution would just be to fix the underlying problem in the first place, and I admit that my company is just profiting off the unnecessary complexity that exists to begin with.
- meristohm 3y ago
  I appreciate that you recognize this and are not just rationalizing to protect yourself. Still, survival is a natural drive. It also feels natural to seek work that fits one's values and gives enough of a sense of meaning to life. I found this in K-12 education and now in parenting, which will have a long tail since our child has extra needs due to disabilities. I have the freedom to pick up some extra work now that school started (my spouse has a full-time job she feels good about), and this work aligns with my values but is not particularly lucrative. I use the public library for most of my entertainment and education (thank you, taxpayers of the USA; this is one of our best investments for the future), and I feel rich in non-monetary ways. All that to say- make the jump to something you feel good about doing! Edit to add: Easily-consumed media (phone games, video shorts, social media posts, etc):books and movies from the public library::highly-processed food:homemade food from your garden or local farm; these wholesome things can be difficult to get in the habit of, but they feel more than momentarily good.

tech_ken 3y ago

> tech used to be about solving hard problems that made human life better It's unclear to me when this was ever "purely" true. Tobacco companies, for example, definitely used cutting-edge (for its era) agro-tech to increase yields, potency, etc since like the 1950s and earlier. Tech has been developing weapons, addictive substances, and useless consumer goods since the industrial revolution (at least). The history of technology is chock-full of abominations. For every "refrigerator" there's "holes in the ozone layer", for every "golden rice" there's "Agent Orange". I 100% agree that modern consumer society is absolutely out of control, and that tech is a major driver, but I see this as an intensification/elaboration of trends that have been in place for centuries rather than a paradigm shift from a previously benign era. As much as I love the various cultural trappings of 90s tech-optimism (and I do love many things about that era) I think it was ultimately kind of a delusion brought on by the complete global dominance of the US economic model (following the end of the Cold War), alongside the headiness of the dot-com bubble, rather than a clear-sighted vision for the future of "technology" (wherever you draw the line on what that is). Not trying to shame anyone who participated in that scene, or say that it was "bad" or "wrong", but I do think that we can't really afford to be sentimental these days. We need to honestly assess the shortfalls of the movements that brought us here.

Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Tobacco companies, for example, definitely used cutting-edge (for its era) agro-tech to increase yields, potency, etc since like the 1950s and earlier. The invention of the automatic cigarette rolling machine was a huge step.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
To emphasize, I agree with you. I don't think "back in the good ol' days" that things were always benevolent, nor do I believe that today that things are always evil. But I do think it's a mistake to say this is just another step, or going from an "8 to a 9". I think this idea that so much of our technology is actively hostile is a part of the puzzle around why many people feel that our pace of real technological advancement and our ability to build big projects has slowed greatly (Patrick Collison has a great blog piece, https://patrickcollison.com/fast https://patrickcollison.com/fast) I feel part of this is a consequence of the fact that we've gotten so good at data analysis, when you look at 2 alternatives and one shows an immediate, clear payoff (but the downsides are long term and not all that clear), while the other shows a riskier, longer term payoff, we (collectively) nearly always go with the short term win. E.g we can see with A/B testing what keeps people the most "engaged", but we just kind of ignore that this "engagement" is with the lowest common denominator of content like rage-inducing tribalism.

harpooniker 3y ago

Tech is about anything people use it for. Why not focus on the company that did this than an entire industry of tech

banannaise 3y ago
It is very convenient for bad actors to insist on a game of whac-a-mole rather than a reckoning with the larger problem that seems to govern the behavior of a large number of significant companies.
- harpooniker 3y ago
  Because that implies a large number of companies are conspiring together without evidence
  - banannaise 3y ago
    The idea of a systemic issue is that an underlying factor is encouraging/inducing bad behavior, not that everyone conspires to perform the bad behavior together (although it certainly doesn't discourage them if everyone else is doing it too).

avgcorrection 3y ago

Tech downsides (?) has always been with us since the Industrial Revolution. Like workers being forced by circumstance to work 12 hour days with no rights. Then some of them having to die to get any rights whatsoever. Marketing also isn't new (“these days”). Smoking was marketed to women as “freedom sticks”. There never was a time when we were all playing on the same team and trying to eventually colonize the Galaxy.

Nasrudith 3y ago
To be a smartass weren't the 12 hour days also the norm in agriculture? Working sun up to sunset as a norm.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  To be a smartass agricultural workload is inherently seasonal.