3 ms·
I'm aware it should be expected. The target of my comment is specifically the "well profit=good" crowd on here. It's to point out the innate contradiction in
by MSFT_Edging 3y ago
I'm aware it should be expected.
The target of my comment is specifically the "well profit=good" crowd on here.
It's to point out the innate contradiction in how we speak about technology compared to the guaranteed outcome in our system.
We're doomed as a species if we keep believing in the magical market as a primary mover for said species. We'll stall in a circlejerk of ads and stock buybacks and never accomplish anything, because any good use for technology is locked behind a gate due to the lack of profit.
Any improvement in medicine is behind lock and key because the pharmaceutical companies "need to make back their investment" despite massive gov funding.
We're killing ourselves here with the spectacle that this system is either working or worth saving.
- stateofinquiry 3y agoTrue points, and I apologize for missing you actual point and wandering off a bit. We probably need another social model for technological development specifically- but I am not sure what it might be. If there is anything useful to salvage from my previous its that this issue has been with us for a long while.
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoI think amazing gains could be made if we ripped the bandaid off and took all the weapons manufacturers and other gov contractors and used that brain power entirely for darpa style public works projects. Our current military industrial project is just a self fulfilling fantasy. Stop the contracts for war, create contracts and research for moving humanity forward without the need to strap it to a missile 20 years before it hits shelves. Keep IP rights publicly owned, license them to anyone and use the licensing fees to fund new research.