8 ms·
I find the e/acc ethos highly relatable for the simple reason that accelerating innovation inevitably means access to new technology becomes democratized quicke
by j0hnyl 3y ago
I find the e/acc ethos highly relatable for the simple reason that accelerating innovation inevitably means access to new technology becomes democratized quicker. Progress and technology only moves forward and this can't be avoided, but when we try to slow it down under false pretenses of "safety" all that means is that the disproportionately wealthy or powerful will have access to it. Accelerating technological progress means these amazing tools can get into the hands of the average person much quicker, and imo that's a good thing.
- 11101010001100 3y agoWhat evidence do you have of 'new technology becomes democratized quicker'? People mostly just use technology, but doesn't necessarily correspond to democratization (although the thought leaders would have you think otherwise).
- olalonde 3y agoDemocratization as in "the action of making something accessible to everyone", not the political system.
- realce 3y agoThey were not asking about a political system. They were asking about what democratization means in actuality - Does the "common man" get source code? Do they get to use the tech w/o interference by 3rd parties? Do they get to own the things they make with this tech? IMO e/acc is just the SV version of Manifest Destiny and it's a self-serving philosophy for people who stand to gain billions and insulate themselves from the downsides the common-man cannot. Democratization means all citizens experience that equally - the good and the bad - but is that what's happening here?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fatherzine 3y ago"new technology is disseminated quicker" as in "microbial dissemination"
- tech_ken 3y agoIMO this is a super ahistorical and overly-simplified reading of technological development. For one, you're painting with an absurdly wide brush. For example: has the rapid development of missile technology "democratized access" to surface-to-air missiles? Obviously not. Technological development comes in many different flavors, and sometimes has nothing to do with "technology" at all (look at the development of push-button elevators). It's not really possible to make realistic statements about "technological development"; you have to apply some qualifications and context. Even when technology does get developed and shared among people quickly there's very, very good reasons we'd want to slow it down in the name of safety. Thalidomide anyone? What about chloroflurocarbons? I certainly agree that it's no good to keep technological power concentrated in the hands of the already-powerful, but to just claim that all efforts at promoting "safety" inevitability deepen inequality is facile. The "e/acc" way of thinking is (IMO) Whig history coming from a freshman engineering major.
- igor47 3y agoThanks for sanity. More broadly, concentration of power and unsafe technology are two different subjects -- we can and should tackle both.
- tech_ken 3y agoAbsolutely! And I do think that the relationship between technology and power is super interesting and worthy of consideration, but this approach to it is just....goofy.
- joenot443 3y agoI think you're missing the forest for the trees (perhaps deliberately) if your immediate criticism of e/acc is that we don't have democratized access to surface-to-air missiles. Most people are able to understand what is broadly meant by "technological development". It normally means stuff like camera phones and internet access and hearing aids, you're the first I've read whose mind immediately jumps to weapons of destruction. If someone noted that they'd been impressed with the technological progress of the 2000s, I wouldn't personally feel the need to smugly clarify that they don't have access to missiles, so their point is misguided. Perhaps their comment would have been clearer to folks like you with the addition of more qualifications and context to describe _exactly what_ kinds of progress is being talked about, but personally I found it very clear. You're letting the political mask slip a bit with the inclusion of the Whig comment, by the way :)
- RandomLensman 3y agoThe democratization of technology can only happen if people broadly can afford the technology. Distributing the gains from technological progress isn't necessarily happening as a default/without effort. At the very least there is a question mark there (see, for example, Acemoglu's work).