4 ms·

It sort of bugs me when people who claim that a problem cannot be solved with technology act like that problem was caused by technology. You get both or neithe

It sort of bugs me when people who claim that a problem cannot be solved with technology act like that problem was caused by technology. You get both or neither, you can't have just one.

_cenw 2y ago
Of course you can. Technology can irreversibly change societies. Do you have a technical solution to the potential for mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons?
- jjk166 2y ago
  Mutually assured destruction is a technical solution - when it is suicidal for either side to attack each other (because of a large and robust nuclear arsenal), both can be confident the other won't attack. There are potentially other technical solutions. Anti-ballistic missile systems could make nuclear strikes non viable, as could more advanced defenses. One could imagine weapons designed to remotely pre-detonate nuclear weapons making them more dangerous to possess than to use. You could by subterfuge render your adversary's nuclear capabilities inoperable. You could find technical solutions to the issues that make the countries adversaries in the first place, for example eliminating dependence on a resource you compete over. You could spread propaganda to install a friendly government. There could be and almost certainly are even better technical solutions that I don't know, and perhaps no one currently knows. Every problem ever solved was at some point unsolved.
  - _cenw 2y ago
    You are misunderstanding me bringing up mutually assured destruction. Sure, it prevents preemptive strikes, but it doesn't prevent accidental launches, broken early warning systems and bad communication. Do you think the fact that we haven't done any of these other measures to a degree that the danger is no longer substantial in 70 or so years is a matter of technology or priority? If it's priority, how do we prioritize? Is that, perhaps, a non-technical problem? If it's a tech advancement problem, how do not constantly have a rolling window of uncontrolled potentially civilization-ending technology?
    - jjk166 2y ago
      > You are misunderstanding me bringing up mutually assured destruction. Sure, it prevents preemptive strikes, but it doesn't prevent accidental launches, broken early warning systems and bad communication. No I understand just fine. We are just using different definitions of problem. In my definition of problem, mutually assured destruction is a solution to the problem of nuclear strikes. Accidental launches, broken early warning systems, and miscommunication are all additional problems, which have their own solutions. There also exist alternative, better solutions to the initial problem (again nuclear strikes), which might avoid some of these additional problems. > Do you think the fact that we haven't done any of these other measures to a degree that the danger is no longer substantial in 70 or so years is a matter of technology or priority? Clearly technology. Nuclear war is an existential threat that has occupied the minds of policy makers and the public alike for decades, and there is arguably no higher priority than preventing it. If someone just had a silver bullet lying around that would eliminate that threat and allow the world to sleep easy it would have been implemented immediately, regardless of cost. It's not like our current solution is free, maintaining a nuclear deterrent is massively expensive and of course carries catastrophic risk if it fails. Substantial effort has been placed into developing some of these alternative solutions, but to date mutually assured destruction remains the best solution available. But technological advance continues, and the idea that a better solution could not eventually be found is silly. > If it's a tech advancement problem, how do not constantly have a rolling window of uncontrolled potentially civilization-ending technology? That is very clearly a different problem - preventing existential threats from being developed in the future versus dealing with existential threats already developed. Let's rephrase the question as "how do we create a situation where people aren't willing to go through the effort to create more capable weapons of mass destruction?" Again, I don't have answers to all the worlds problems, but it's reasonable to believe that a series of technical fixes to the root causes of the problem exist.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Things like stuxnet.
Terr_ 2y ago
I'm with you in the first sentence, but the second doesn't make sense to me. All 4 combinations of (not-)solved-by-tech and (not-)caused-by-tech are possible.
- tomjen3 2y ago
  Can you give a concrete example of caused by technology, but not solvable (in principle if that was what you meant) by technology? I am having trouble coming up with one.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Seems to me like the initial causing of the problem would have to be a one-time self-destructive event. Like maybe we blow up the moon or something and then don't survive the aftermath. We can't use tech to solve the problem if the problem is that we're extinct. I think that's pretty far out from the sort of thing that people are thinking of when they talk about things you can and can't do with technology, so I think it's more sensible to just say that the category is empty.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > a concrete example of caused by technology, but not solvable Consider any kind of unrest caused by the automation of tasks that formerly required a professional human, such as how the industrial revolution affected textile-manufacturing and the Luddite reaction. The new technology is a major and necessary cause of the situation, yet even with 200 years of hindsight it's hard to imagine any new followup invention that would promptly solve it. Another category would be ecological or pollution issues, which in many cases involve social and legal solutions. For example, the new chemical technology of leaded gasoline. We didn't solve by inventing a De-Leadifier Device, or even the Cheaper New Formula, but because it became (mostly) banned. It probably goes without saying, but for "solvable with technology" I am not including things like inventing a time-machine to go back and make it never-have-happened, or the idea that it'll be solved eventually when the Ascension Device elevates our descendants beyond such mortal concerns, etc.

It sort of bugs me when people who claim that a problem cannot be solved with technology act like that problem was caused by technology. You get both or neither, you can't have just one.

_cenw 2y ago

Of course you can. Technology can irreversibly change societies. Do you have a technical solution to the potential for mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons?

jjk166 2y ago
Mutually assured destruction is a technical solution - when it is suicidal for either side to attack each other (because of a large and robust nuclear arsenal), both can be confident the other won't attack. There are potentially other technical solutions. Anti-ballistic missile systems could make nuclear strikes non viable, as could more advanced defenses. One could imagine weapons designed to remotely pre-detonate nuclear weapons making them more dangerous to possess than to use. You could by subterfuge render your adversary's nuclear capabilities inoperable. You could find technical solutions to the issues that make the countries adversaries in the first place, for example eliminating dependence on a resource you compete over. You could spread propaganda to install a friendly government. There could be and almost certainly are even better technical solutions that I don't know, and perhaps no one currently knows. Every problem ever solved was at some point unsolved.
- _cenw 2y ago
  You are misunderstanding me bringing up mutually assured destruction. Sure, it prevents preemptive strikes, but it doesn't prevent accidental launches, broken early warning systems and bad communication. Do you think the fact that we haven't done any of these other measures to a degree that the danger is no longer substantial in 70 or so years is a matter of technology or priority? If it's priority, how do we prioritize? Is that, perhaps, a non-technical problem? If it's a tech advancement problem, how do not constantly have a rolling window of uncontrolled potentially civilization-ending technology?
  - jjk166 2y ago
    > You are misunderstanding me bringing up mutually assured destruction. Sure, it prevents preemptive strikes, but it doesn't prevent accidental launches, broken early warning systems and bad communication. No I understand just fine. We are just using different definitions of problem. In my definition of problem, mutually assured destruction is a solution to the problem of nuclear strikes. Accidental launches, broken early warning systems, and miscommunication are all additional problems, which have their own solutions. There also exist alternative, better solutions to the initial problem (again nuclear strikes), which might avoid some of these additional problems. > Do you think the fact that we haven't done any of these other measures to a degree that the danger is no longer substantial in 70 or so years is a matter of technology or priority? Clearly technology. Nuclear war is an existential threat that has occupied the minds of policy makers and the public alike for decades, and there is arguably no higher priority than preventing it. If someone just had a silver bullet lying around that would eliminate that threat and allow the world to sleep easy it would have been implemented immediately, regardless of cost. It's not like our current solution is free, maintaining a nuclear deterrent is massively expensive and of course carries catastrophic risk if it fails. Substantial effort has been placed into developing some of these alternative solutions, but to date mutually assured destruction remains the best solution available. But technological advance continues, and the idea that a better solution could not eventually be found is silly. > If it's a tech advancement problem, how do not constantly have a rolling window of uncontrolled potentially civilization-ending technology? That is very clearly a different problem - preventing existential threats from being developed in the future versus dealing with existential threats already developed. Let's rephrase the question as "how do we create a situation where people aren't willing to go through the effort to create more capable weapons of mass destruction?" Again, I don't have answers to all the worlds problems, but it's reasonable to believe that a series of technical fixes to the root causes of the problem exist.
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Things like stuxnet.

Terr_ 2y ago

I'm with you in the first sentence, but the second doesn't make sense to me. All 4 combinations of (not-)solved-by-tech and (not-)caused-by-tech are possible.

tomjen3 2y ago
Can you give a concrete example of caused by technology, but not solvable (in principle if that was what you meant) by technology? I am having trouble coming up with one.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Seems to me like the initial causing of the problem would have to be a one-time self-destructive event. Like maybe we blow up the moon or something and then don't survive the aftermath. We can't use tech to solve the problem if the problem is that we're extinct. I think that's pretty far out from the sort of thing that people are thinking of when they talk about things you can and can't do with technology, so I think it's more sensible to just say that the category is empty.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > a concrete example of caused by technology, but not solvable Consider any kind of unrest caused by the automation of tasks that formerly required a professional human, such as how the industrial revolution affected textile-manufacturing and the Luddite reaction. The new technology is a major and necessary cause of the situation, yet even with 200 years of hindsight it's hard to imagine any new followup invention that would promptly solve it. Another category would be ecological or pollution issues, which in many cases involve social and legal solutions. For example, the new chemical technology of leaded gasoline. We didn't solve by inventing a De-Leadifier Device, or even the Cheaper New Formula, but because it became (mostly) banned. It probably goes without saying, but for "solvable with technology" I am not including things like inventing a time-machine to go back and make it never-have-happened, or the idea that it'll be solved eventually when the Ascension Device elevates our descendants beyond such mortal concerns, etc.