5 ms·

If computers and machines are inherently oppressive for the reasons stated, then so is all of existence. The cosmic machinery that governs these computers is re

If computers and machines are inherently oppressive for the reasons stated, then so is all of existence. The cosmic machinery that governs these computers is really at the root, and that machinery’s “ruthlessness” extends beyond modern technology. The “sinister ruthlessness” the author projects is also observed on a much broader scale in nature and isn’t limited to human-made machines. I think there’s a very important conversation to be had about the role of technology in our lives and the ways that it can be harmful. But I don’t believe that anthropomorphizing it, assigning terms like “sinister”/“ruthless” or viewing it as “inherently oppressive” moves that conversation in a useful direction.

shrimp_emoji 2y ago
Yeah... I guess Landian accelerationism really is the Tao indicated by the cosmos. Alright, fine, where do I sign up?
hlandau 2y ago
Author here. In a word: yes. The universe is cold, ruthless, and does not care about us. I make no claims otherwise. Society isn't that, though. Not least because nobody is particularly happy about the above fact and most people are trying to get away from it, not embrace it. And so, society is made up of people who have the capacity for empathy and adaptation to the nuances of others. So the relevant comparison here is not the timeframe before human civilization came to exist, but the society which existed prior to computerisation. The adoption of computers within a society largely replaces human-to-human interactions with human-to-computer interactions, or interactions between humans which are now modulated and controlled by a computer (human-computer-human). That adoption trend inherently converts relationships between humans which are adaptable and contain a component of empathy, to interactions controlled by non-adaptive machinery with no capacity for empathy. The adoption of computers as a technology within the context of a society seems, to me, to make society inherently more oppressive and less humane for this reason. (The main exception I would grant is computers only used by the people who have freely chosen to own them (as per comment above), and to which other people aren't subject to non-consensually.)
- haswell 2y ago
  > The adoption of computers within a society largely replaces human-to-human interactions with human-to-computer interactions, or interactions between humans which are now modulated and controlled by a computer (human-computer-human). That adoption trend inherently converts relationships between humans which are adaptable and contain a component of empathy, to interactions controlled by non-adaptive machinery with no capacity for empathy. I agree for a subset of tech interactions (not all, or even most machinery resembles this), and this is the primary conversation we need to be having IMO. > The adoption of computers as a technology within the context of a society seems, to me, to make society inherently more oppressive and less humane for this reason This is where I don’t agree, and I don’t see how this follows from the former paragraph. Zooming out again for a moment: from the cold indifference of the universe, infinite possibilities emerge. That same coldness gives rise to the most horrible things one can imagine, but so too the most wonderful things one can imagine. I’m old enough to remember life before everyone had a computer, and for me, that life was significantly worse. My ability to connect with people outside of my immediate circles is how I survived and eventually escaped a deeply harmful environment. I do think that technology can magnify humanity’s best and worst impulses, and makes dangerous people more dangerous. But it also enables global collaboration and connection on a scale that was previously impossible, and unlocks positive outcomes that were simply impossible before. Again, I think there’s a really important conversation to be had about the pitfalls of technology. But to position it as “inherently” anything seems unproductive at best and extremely counterproductive at worst. To position it as inherently oppressive seems to ignore the many ways it is anything but that.
bamboozled 2y ago
Next time you're enjoying a beautiful sunset think about whether or not the entire universe conspiring to produce such a beautiful spectacle for you to enjoy is cold and ruthless place? Yes bad things happen, but the Universe can be good to us and bad to us.
- haswell 2y ago
  I think you misunderstood my comment. My point was not that the only thing that exists is cold ruthlessness, but that the claim that technology is inherently oppressive does not make sense. Doesn’t make sense for the reasons you state: it brings both good and bad. And doesn’t make sense because the same factors are in play as you zoom out beyond specific technologies and observe the broader machinery at work. The cold ruthlessness of the universe is what makes the sunset so beautiful. The beauty of the sunset is what makes the universe so cold and ruthless. These are not statements about causality, but rather about the spectrum of possible phenomena and how we experience it. The highest highs are balanced by the lowest lows. Beauty and ugliness are interdependent concepts that co-emerge. > Yes bad things happen, but the Universe can be good to us and bad to us The universe doesn’t have agency as far as we know. It is not bestowing good and bad on us. Things happen based on the laws of nature. We interpret them and assign them labels like good and bad based on our individual experience of what we see. I’m picking this nit because I think the primary error in the original piece was to assign intrinsic properties/essence to objects of technology (or all of existence) when in reality these are mental phenomena layered on top of whatever is actually happening.

shrimp_emoji 2y ago

Yeah... I guess Landian accelerationism really is the Tao indicated by the cosmos. Alright, fine, where do I sign up?

hlandau 2y ago

Author here. In a word: yes. The universe is cold, ruthless, and does not care about us. I make no claims otherwise. Society isn't that, though. Not least because nobody is particularly happy about the above fact and most people are trying to get away from it, not embrace it. And so, society is made up of people who have the capacity for empathy and adaptation to the nuances of others. So the relevant comparison here is not the timeframe before human civilization came to exist, but the society which existed prior to computerisation. The adoption of computers within a society largely replaces human-to-human interactions with human-to-computer interactions, or interactions between humans which are now modulated and controlled by a computer (human-computer-human). That adoption trend inherently converts relationships between humans which are adaptable and contain a component of empathy, to interactions controlled by non-adaptive machinery with no capacity for empathy. The adoption of computers as a technology within the context of a society seems, to me, to make society inherently more oppressive and less humane for this reason. (The main exception I would grant is computers only used by the people who have freely chosen to own them (as per comment above), and to which other people aren't subject to non-consensually.)

haswell 2y ago
> The adoption of computers within a society largely replaces human-to-human interactions with human-to-computer interactions, or interactions between humans which are now modulated and controlled by a computer (human-computer-human). That adoption trend inherently converts relationships between humans which are adaptable and contain a component of empathy, to interactions controlled by non-adaptive machinery with no capacity for empathy. I agree for a subset of tech interactions (not all, or even most machinery resembles this), and this is the primary conversation we need to be having IMO. > The adoption of computers as a technology within the context of a society seems, to me, to make society inherently more oppressive and less humane for this reason This is where I don’t agree, and I don’t see how this follows from the former paragraph. Zooming out again for a moment: from the cold indifference of the universe, infinite possibilities emerge. That same coldness gives rise to the most horrible things one can imagine, but so too the most wonderful things one can imagine. I’m old enough to remember life before everyone had a computer, and for me, that life was significantly worse. My ability to connect with people outside of my immediate circles is how I survived and eventually escaped a deeply harmful environment. I do think that technology can magnify humanity’s best and worst impulses, and makes dangerous people more dangerous. But it also enables global collaboration and connection on a scale that was previously impossible, and unlocks positive outcomes that were simply impossible before. Again, I think there’s a really important conversation to be had about the pitfalls of technology. But to position it as “inherently” anything seems unproductive at best and extremely counterproductive at worst. To position it as inherently oppressive seems to ignore the many ways it is anything but that.

bamboozled 2y ago

Next time you're enjoying a beautiful sunset think about whether or not the entire universe conspiring to produce such a beautiful spectacle for you to enjoy is cold and ruthless place? Yes bad things happen, but the Universe can be good to us and bad to us.

haswell 2y ago
I think you misunderstood my comment. My point was not that the only thing that exists is cold ruthlessness, but that the claim that technology is inherently oppressive does not make sense. Doesn’t make sense for the reasons you state: it brings both good and bad. And doesn’t make sense because the same factors are in play as you zoom out beyond specific technologies and observe the broader machinery at work. The cold ruthlessness of the universe is what makes the sunset so beautiful. The beauty of the sunset is what makes the universe so cold and ruthless. These are not statements about causality, but rather about the spectrum of possible phenomena and how we experience it. The highest highs are balanced by the lowest lows. Beauty and ugliness are interdependent concepts that co-emerge. > Yes bad things happen, but the Universe can be good to us and bad to us The universe doesn’t have agency as far as we know. It is not bestowing good and bad on us. Things happen based on the laws of nature. We interpret them and assign them labels like good and bad based on our individual experience of what we see. I’m picking this nit because I think the primary error in the original piece was to assign intrinsic properties/essence to objects of technology (or all of existence) when in reality these are mental phenomena layered on top of whatever is actually happening.