3 ms·

This opinion will inevitably be seen as pessimistic tech doomerism, especially on forums like this. And yet, for all the glory and benefit that we were promise

by imiric 1y ago

This opinion will inevitably be seen as pessimistic tech doomerism, especially on forums like this. And yet, for all the glory and benefit that we were promised modern technology would bring, the average person only enjoys a small sliver of it, while the rest is enjoyed by the 1% of humans in control, or corrupted by those who seek becoming part of the 1%. We can access a world of information, but most of it is corrupted by (m|d)isinformation. In fact, most mainstream media is corrupted by it. We can communicate with family and loved ones around the world, at the expense of our data being exploited. We can buy and consume easier than ever before, but have to navigate a sea of poor quality products and scams. We have miraculous drugs, most of which are only accessible to the wealthy. We have self-driving cars and high-tech gadgets to entertain ourselves, which is great until the companies start exploiting us. And so on. The latest wave of AI tech is another step in this same direction, ramped up to levels we have never seen before. I challenge anyone to steel man the argument that technology has been a net positive for humanity on a global scale, or that it will ever get better. I sure can't.

throwpoaster 1y ago
Globally, since the advent of widespread computer use, human life has improved by orders of magnitude along every metric we have: poverty, hunger, disease, literacy, child mortality, life expectancy, homicide rates, etc., etc., etc.: https://ourworldindata.org https://ourworldindata.org Respectfully, you are the one making an extraordinary claim in need of evidentiary support.
- phs318u 1y ago
  I’d love to see a chain of cause and effect that links any of those outcomes to widespread computer use and advancements in computing.
  - throwpoaster 1y ago
    Go nuts. I am not making this claim.
- imiric 1y ago
  > Globally, since the advent of widespread computer use, human life has improved by orders of magnitude along every metric we have: poverty, hunger, disease, literacy, child mortality, life expectancy, homicide rates, etc. Most of those trends were in motion well before widespread computer use, e.g. [1]. I'm sure that computers were a factor in improving the rate of literacy, education, perhaps even poverty, but they played a much smaller role in improving hunger, disease, child mortality, life expectancy, let alone homicide rates(!). Most of those are attributable to improvements in economic programs, sociopolitical stability, etc. I.e. the global progress humanity has experienced for centuries. Which, unfortunately, has been slowing down or regressing in the past few decades precisely _because_ of technology. You can see this in literacy, for example[2]. Yes, the rate increases post-1950, but it had been increasing for many decades before. There is a large uptick between 1950 and 1980, well before computers were in widespread use. So, sure, we can say that computers played a role, but the world was already improving without them. > Respectfully, you are the one making an extraordinary claim in need of evidentiary support. Extraordinary claim? Everything I said can be verified by a cursory web search (assuming you can navigate around disinformation), or by personal experience, since I'm sure most of us have directly experienced some form of it. I don't think it's interesting to rehash verifiable claims, but I am interested in discussing the positive effects of technology. You mentioned some, but when factoring in everything else I mentioned in my previous post, I still don't see how these make technology a net positive. To be clear: technology in general has revolutionized many fields, such as agriculture and medicine, which has greatly contributed to improving the well-being of billions of people. But that's not the kind of technology I'm talking about here. I'm specifically referring to modern computing since roughly the 1970s. The kind of technology within the context of companies like Commodore. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/literacy https://ourworldindata.org/literacy
- jama211 1y ago
  Well said.
graemep 1y ago
I think advances in IT were a strong net positive for a long time. Certainly until into this century. The way much of it has developed in the last decade or so has been net negative (social media, surveillance, etc.). > We can access a world of information, but most of it is corrupted by (m|d)isinformation. In fact, most mainstream media is corrupted by it. We have more sources and can check. Any new medium needs time for people to learn to deal with it. No one doubts that printing has been a net positive, but it was used to spread misinformation - one of the first really influential printed works was Malleus Maleficarum. > We can communicate with family and loved ones around the world, at the expense of our data being exploited. Well, they have metadata, but a lot of chat is E2E. Email can be E2E encrypted too but people do not know about it and big companies do not want to support it. > We can buy and consume easier than ever before, but have to navigate a sea of poor quality products and scams I think that also reflects the way the wider economy has developed (concentration of production power in big businesses) and culture (people do longer feel a duty to do a good job for customers). > We have miraculous drugs, most of which are only accessible to the wealthy The poor have far better access to drugs too. Almost all drugs are available to people in developed countries, and even in poor countries availability has improved a lot.
- jama211 1y ago
  Yeah I don’t think the guy you’re talking to is really arguing in good faith or has thought through their opinion beyond wanting to shake their fist at clouds. Any one of those things, even if true, is still a huge effect. Take the “drugs only accessible to the wealthy” - they say that like that makes them basically pointless. Sure, it’s bad that the poorest communities can have difficulty getting access to the latest drugs, but the idea that hundreds of millions of people around the world who do have access to these drugs would still be a pretty cool achievement? Their points reek of “anything less than perfection may as well have not even existed” - which is a huge fallacy (often used in political ad campaigns to mislead the public).
- jama211 1y ago
  Yeah I don’t think the guy you’re talking to is really arguing in good faith or has thought through their opinion beyond wanting to shake their fist at clouds. Any one of those things, even if true, is still a huge effect. Take the “drugs only accessible to the wealthy” - they say that like that makes them basically pointless. Sure, it’s bad that the poorest communities can have difficulty getting access to the latest drugs, but the idea that hundreds of millions of people around the world who do have access to these drugs wouldn’t still be a pretty cool achievement? Their points reek of “anything less than perfection may as well have not even existed” - which is a huge fallacy (often used in political ad campaigns to mislead the public).
jama211 1y ago
As someone in a country with a functional healthcare system, I can assure you those miraculous drugs are available to all here. There are many countries like this.
jama211 1y ago
As someone in a country with a functional healthcare system, I can assure you those miraculous drugs are available to all here. There are many countries like this. I suspect you’re more interested in shaking your fist at clouds than you are in making properly thought through points, however. Your comment isn’t “pessimistic tech doomerism”, it’s simpler than that, it’s self aggrandising statements based on feelings rather than facts.

by imiric 1y ago

throwpoaster 1y ago

Globally, since the advent of widespread computer use, human life has improved by orders of magnitude along every metric we have: poverty, hunger, disease, literacy, child mortality, life expectancy, homicide rates, etc., etc., etc.: https://ourworldindata.org https://ourworldindata.org Respectfully, you are the one making an extraordinary claim in need of evidentiary support.

phs318u 1y ago
I’d love to see a chain of cause and effect that links any of those outcomes to widespread computer use and advancements in computing.
- throwpoaster 1y ago
  Go nuts. I am not making this claim.
imiric 1y ago
> Globally, since the advent of widespread computer use, human life has improved by orders of magnitude along every metric we have: poverty, hunger, disease, literacy, child mortality, life expectancy, homicide rates, etc. Most of those trends were in motion well before widespread computer use, e.g. [1]. I'm sure that computers were a factor in improving the rate of literacy, education, perhaps even poverty, but they played a much smaller role in improving hunger, disease, child mortality, life expectancy, let alone homicide rates(!). Most of those are attributable to improvements in economic programs, sociopolitical stability, etc. I.e. the global progress humanity has experienced for centuries. Which, unfortunately, has been slowing down or regressing in the past few decades precisely _because_ of technology. You can see this in literacy, for example[2]. Yes, the rate increases post-1950, but it had been increasing for many decades before. There is a large uptick between 1950 and 1980, well before computers were in widespread use. So, sure, we can say that computers played a role, but the world was already improving without them. > Respectfully, you are the one making an extraordinary claim in need of evidentiary support. Extraordinary claim? Everything I said can be verified by a cursory web search (assuming you can navigate around disinformation), or by personal experience, since I'm sure most of us have directly experienced some form of it. I don't think it's interesting to rehash verifiable claims, but I am interested in discussing the positive effects of technology. You mentioned some, but when factoring in everything else I mentioned in my previous post, I still don't see how these make technology a net positive. To be clear: technology in general has revolutionized many fields, such as agriculture and medicine, which has greatly contributed to improving the well-being of billions of people. But that's not the kind of technology I'm talking about here. I'm specifically referring to modern computing since roughly the 1970s. The kind of technology within the context of companies like Commodore. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/literacy https://ourworldindata.org/literacy
jama211 1y ago
Well said.

graemep 1y ago

I think advances in IT were a strong net positive for a long time. Certainly until into this century. The way much of it has developed in the last decade or so has been net negative (social media, surveillance, etc.). > We can access a world of information, but most of it is corrupted by (m|d)isinformation. In fact, most mainstream media is corrupted by it. We have more sources and can check. Any new medium needs time for people to learn to deal with it. No one doubts that printing has been a net positive, but it was used to spread misinformation - one of the first really influential printed works was Malleus Maleficarum. > We can communicate with family and loved ones around the world, at the expense of our data being exploited. Well, they have metadata, but a lot of chat is E2E. Email can be E2E encrypted too but people do not know about it and big companies do not want to support it. > We can buy and consume easier than ever before, but have to navigate a sea of poor quality products and scams I think that also reflects the way the wider economy has developed (concentration of production power in big businesses) and culture (people do longer feel a duty to do a good job for customers). > We have miraculous drugs, most of which are only accessible to the wealthy The poor have far better access to drugs too. Almost all drugs are available to people in developed countries, and even in poor countries availability has improved a lot.

jama211 1y ago
Yeah I don’t think the guy you’re talking to is really arguing in good faith or has thought through their opinion beyond wanting to shake their fist at clouds. Any one of those things, even if true, is still a huge effect. Take the “drugs only accessible to the wealthy” - they say that like that makes them basically pointless. Sure, it’s bad that the poorest communities can have difficulty getting access to the latest drugs, but the idea that hundreds of millions of people around the world who do have access to these drugs would still be a pretty cool achievement? Their points reek of “anything less than perfection may as well have not even existed” - which is a huge fallacy (often used in political ad campaigns to mislead the public).
jama211 1y ago
Yeah I don’t think the guy you’re talking to is really arguing in good faith or has thought through their opinion beyond wanting to shake their fist at clouds. Any one of those things, even if true, is still a huge effect. Take the “drugs only accessible to the wealthy” - they say that like that makes them basically pointless. Sure, it’s bad that the poorest communities can have difficulty getting access to the latest drugs, but the idea that hundreds of millions of people around the world who do have access to these drugs wouldn’t still be a pretty cool achievement? Their points reek of “anything less than perfection may as well have not even existed” - which is a huge fallacy (often used in political ad campaigns to mislead the public).

jama211 1y ago

As someone in a country with a functional healthcare system, I can assure you those miraculous drugs are available to all here. There are many countries like this.

jama211 1y ago

As someone in a country with a functional healthcare system, I can assure you those miraculous drugs are available to all here. There are many countries like this. I suspect you’re more interested in shaking your fist at clouds than you are in making properly thought through points, however. Your comment isn’t “pessimistic tech doomerism”, it’s simpler than that, it’s self aggrandising statements based on feelings rather than facts.