4 ms·

I agreed with a lot of what the article said , but then the author seems to go full-TED-bullshit-buzzword towards the end with little evidence or citation and f

by tfgg 13y ago

I agreed with a lot of what the article said , but then the author seems to go full-TED-bullshit-buzzword towards the end with little evidence or citation and falls into the pseudo-intellectual knowledge-lite trap that he's criticising: > Part of my work explores deep technocultural shifts, from post-humanism to the post-anthropocene, but TED’s version has too much faith in technology, and not nearly enough commitment to technology. It is placebo technoradicalism, toying with risk so as to re-affirm the comfortable. > The most recent centuries have seen extraordinary accomplishments in improving quality of life. The paradox is that the system we have now --whatever you want to call it-- is in the short term what makes the amazing new technologies possible, but in the long run it is also what suppresses their full flowering. Another economic architecture is prerequisite. > The potential for these technologies are both wonderful and horrifying at the same time, and to make them serve good futures, design as "innovation” just isn’t a strong enough idea by itself. We need to talk more about design as “immunization,” actively preventing certain potential “innovations” that we do not want from happening.

spinchange 13y ago
It strikes me that a TED talk about TED talks being 'all talk' isn't incredibly substantive either. It's like the random comment or tweet referencing something only because the author says it isn't worth your time. I do think his assessment of "placebo technoradicalism, toying with risk so as to re-affirm the comfortable" was accurate and insightful, but only at TED's worst. To talk about how all this is so "harmful," etc., seems like an insight into the speaker's own self importance and 'thought leadership.' That being said, it comes with the territory for any TED talk. Really, what's the harm, is kind of my thinking.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Really, what's the harm, is kind of my thinking. Yeah, the word that comes to mind is masturbation. >It strikes me that a TED talk about TED talks being 'all talk' isn't incredibly substantive either. The very fact that it's called TED talks and not TED action or TED works is testament to its nature. What else would we get but people pontificating about the world, future, etc.? The audience is essentially encouraged to be sort of passively "talked to" and await the heralding of the new world, to be ushered in by the big thinkers who are, of course, busy talking.

by tfgg 13y ago

spinchange 13y ago

It strikes me that a TED talk about TED talks being 'all talk' isn't incredibly substantive either. It's like the random comment or tweet referencing something only because the author says it isn't worth your time. I do think his assessment of "placebo technoradicalism, toying with risk so as to re-affirm the comfortable" was accurate and insightful, but only at TED's worst. To talk about how all this is so "harmful," etc., seems like an insight into the speaker's own self importance and 'thought leadership.' That being said, it comes with the territory for any TED talk. Really, what's the harm, is kind of my thinking.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Really, what's the harm, is kind of my thinking. Yeah, the word that comes to mind is masturbation. >It strikes me that a TED talk about TED talks being 'all talk' isn't incredibly substantive either. The very fact that it's called TED talks and not TED action or TED works is testament to its nature. What else would we get but people pontificating about the world, future, etc.? The audience is essentially encouraged to be sort of passively "talked to" and await the heralding of the new world, to be ushered in by the big thinkers who are, of course, busy talking.