3 ms·

> Technology is necessarily a progressive force Technology is a tool. It is not a culture or a system. In fact, I think state and corporate use of technology f

> Technology is necessarily a progressive force Technology is a tool. It is not a culture or a system. In fact, I think state and corporate use of technology for things like surveillance, censorship, frankly pointless jobs that somehow attract VC money, mass propaganda and social media access, data tracking and advertising and behavior modelling to a T, hypothetical pointless-job-destroying-AGI, etc. that are currently in vogue are part of the conservative structure. Technology means moving, but is this outwards or inwards movement?

marcosdumay 2y ago
Conservative people just can't create technology. Technology is always progressive. It can be progressive towards any amount of things, good or bad. But conservatism requires not developing it.
- KittenInABox 2y ago
  I think this is conflating conservatism as a political position and conservatism as an anti-development position. Conservatism as a political position has very little to do with actual developmental changes and way more to do with retaining existing political hierarchies. If a new tool came into existence to enforce a existing caste systems (race, class, whatever) then political conservatism would be for this tool. Consider reading Rabbit Test by Samantha Mills as a great display of this difference in the context of reproductive rights[0]. https://www.uncannymagazine.com/article/rabbit-test/ https://www.uncannymagazine.com/article/rabbit-test/
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > I think this is conflating conservatism as a political position and conservatism as an anti-development position. In absolutely no place in either comment I mentioned political movements, parties, or anything like that.
    - KittenInABox 2y ago
      Well yes, the term conservatism is ambiguous as it means different things in different contexts. I'm suggesting you're conflating this.
    - zytron3 2y ago
      Your own introduction of the term was alongside feudalism, which most would say is "something like" a political movement

marcosdumay 2y ago

Conservative people just can't create technology. Technology is always progressive. It can be progressive towards any amount of things, good or bad. But conservatism requires not developing it.

KittenInABox 2y ago
I think this is conflating conservatism as a political position and conservatism as an anti-development position. Conservatism as a political position has very little to do with actual developmental changes and way more to do with retaining existing political hierarchies. If a new tool came into existence to enforce a existing caste systems (race, class, whatever) then political conservatism would be for this tool. Consider reading Rabbit Test by Samantha Mills as a great display of this difference in the context of reproductive rights[0]. https://www.uncannymagazine.com/article/rabbit-test/ https://www.uncannymagazine.com/article/rabbit-test/
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > I think this is conflating conservatism as a political position and conservatism as an anti-development position. In absolutely no place in either comment I mentioned political movements, parties, or anything like that.
  - KittenInABox 2y ago
    Well yes, the term conservatism is ambiguous as it means different things in different contexts. I'm suggesting you're conflating this.
  - zytron3 2y ago
    Your own introduction of the term was alongside feudalism, which most would say is "something like" a political movement