This is a lengthy way to miss the point presented by tech skeptics - who are often deeply knowledgeable tech *pioneers*. I see you're dunking on Paris Marx, but you're also dismissing the likes of Cory Doctorow, who no-one could accuse of being a techphobe. You're doing what a lot of people do, which is dismiss tech skeptics as Luddites without looking into who the Luddites actually were and what they stood for.
Marx is one of several. I write a lot about trade-offs. This particular post is not at all about the majority of genuinely curious writers, it's about the vocal & influential minority that make silly strawmen & skip trade-offs conversations.
You are a deeper and more skilled thinker than this essay shows. You are way too simplistic here. Every "solution" has both known and unknown (unintended) consequences. The environmental and physiological consequences of plastics are well documented. Placing enough lithium in a car to give it a 300 mile range when the average driver covers only 40 miles per day is/will create the unintended consequence of over-mining and higher prices for electric vehicles, thereby limiting their market penetration. My favorite was the decision to forgo nuclear energy expansion in the 70's/80's, thereby creating a greater reliance on coal and exacting the price of 250,000 premature deaths per year, not to mention exasperation of climate change. And so on. I know that you know this, so I'm surprised at this entry into your stack. It's an outlier to your otherwise thoughtful analysis.
Agree. Andy, this really did miss the level of insight usually present. I know you've already acknowledged that, and I don't want to put you off taking future 'risks' with your thinking by kicking you while you're down 😉.
The one thing I'd add is we just need to question, with any new tech, "who it does it for; and who it does it to"...Even the commercialisation of soap resulted in a horrific whaling industry, which we are still accounting for.
Yes, trade-offs. Also whale oil was used for lamps until kerosene came along. (I think I've written about that.) So kerosene did tremendous good by saving the whales... and also some well-documented harms.
If two readers in a row are quick to think this is off my usual mark, then I'm not blaming my readers.
As Thomas Sowell said, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. I'm a firm believer in that. Advanced computer models won't change the operator's view that car delay should be minimized at intersections.
This morning I was motivated to write this because of a handful of stories I read in tech blogs (and a presentation). The simple answers were "tech won't save us" while making strawman arguments like I criticized above. This post has zero analysis. It's my response to what I think is an absurdist position growing in influence. Social media rewards it.
Speed governors are tech that would save lives. Nuclear energy, as you say, is tech that would save lives. Roundabouts are tech that would save lives. Not all tech saves lives, but it's false to say it can't.
Candidly, this fails to engage with the actual arguments presented by tech skeptics in a disappointing way. If a tech skeptic a hundred years ago said that personal automobiles would rend the fabric of our cities, poison the air, and literally alienate and move us farther apart, while killing thousands, I'm sure they would be dismissed as mere hysterics standing in the way of progress. They'd also be correct!
Hating on tech for the sake of hating on it isn't useful or thoughtful, but I'm skeptical that this reflexive backlash-- the anti-anti-tech posture-- is a useful contribution, either.
In fact, there *have been* many charlatans and cranks making money selling ineffectual cures; it's not anti-scientific to either want substantiation of techno-solutionist claims, nor to desire regulation to protect people. It is good that people don't go blind when they buy alcohol anymore, and it is good that people can't buy cleaning solvents at strengths that are dangerous to them.
Even to take one of your examples at the beginning of the post-- batteries are powering e-bikes that can replace SUVs, and also, much larger batteries are being put into electric SUVs that are heavier and even more dangerous to vulnerable road users, increase wear and tear on the roads, and (while they don't have tailpipe emissions) still create air pollution from tire particles and drive poor land use bad urban policy.
I think there's more to tech skepticism than clout chasing, conspiracy, and science-denialism, and I think it's worth to it to engage seriously with the serious critiques.
Thoughtful tech skeptics are not who I'm talking about. It's the vocal & hysterical minority, some of whom have become influential. My well-documented bias is for human-scale design that leads to human flourishing. Technology leads to bombs & poison gas (awful) and air conditioning (wonderful).
Every type of tech has trade-offs, and I welcome those conversations.
This is a lengthy way to miss the point presented by tech skeptics - who are often deeply knowledgeable tech *pioneers*. I see you're dunking on Paris Marx, but you're also dismissing the likes of Cory Doctorow, who no-one could accuse of being a techphobe. You're doing what a lot of people do, which is dismiss tech skeptics as Luddites without looking into who the Luddites actually were and what they stood for.
Marx is one of several. I write a lot about trade-offs. This particular post is not at all about the majority of genuinely curious writers, it's about the vocal & influential minority that make silly strawmen & skip trade-offs conversations.
I look forward to hearing more on this.
You are a deeper and more skilled thinker than this essay shows. You are way too simplistic here. Every "solution" has both known and unknown (unintended) consequences. The environmental and physiological consequences of plastics are well documented. Placing enough lithium in a car to give it a 300 mile range when the average driver covers only 40 miles per day is/will create the unintended consequence of over-mining and higher prices for electric vehicles, thereby limiting their market penetration. My favorite was the decision to forgo nuclear energy expansion in the 70's/80's, thereby creating a greater reliance on coal and exacting the price of 250,000 premature deaths per year, not to mention exasperation of climate change. And so on. I know that you know this, so I'm surprised at this entry into your stack. It's an outlier to your otherwise thoughtful analysis.
Agree. Andy, this really did miss the level of insight usually present. I know you've already acknowledged that, and I don't want to put you off taking future 'risks' with your thinking by kicking you while you're down 😉.
The one thing I'd add is we just need to question, with any new tech, "who it does it for; and who it does it to"...Even the commercialisation of soap resulted in a horrific whaling industry, which we are still accounting for.
Keep up the good work!
Yes, trade-offs. Also whale oil was used for lamps until kerosene came along. (I think I've written about that.) So kerosene did tremendous good by saving the whales... and also some well-documented harms.
If two readers in a row are quick to think this is off my usual mark, then I'm not blaming my readers.
As Thomas Sowell said, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. I'm a firm believer in that. Advanced computer models won't change the operator's view that car delay should be minimized at intersections.
This morning I was motivated to write this because of a handful of stories I read in tech blogs (and a presentation). The simple answers were "tech won't save us" while making strawman arguments like I criticized above. This post has zero analysis. It's my response to what I think is an absurdist position growing in influence. Social media rewards it.
Speed governors are tech that would save lives. Nuclear energy, as you say, is tech that would save lives. Roundabouts are tech that would save lives. Not all tech saves lives, but it's false to say it can't.
Social media rewards many an absurdist position. 😡😡😡 Keep the analysis coming.
Mark, what if I told you Absurd is my middle name. ;)
Candidly, this fails to engage with the actual arguments presented by tech skeptics in a disappointing way. If a tech skeptic a hundred years ago said that personal automobiles would rend the fabric of our cities, poison the air, and literally alienate and move us farther apart, while killing thousands, I'm sure they would be dismissed as mere hysterics standing in the way of progress. They'd also be correct!
Hating on tech for the sake of hating on it isn't useful or thoughtful, but I'm skeptical that this reflexive backlash-- the anti-anti-tech posture-- is a useful contribution, either.
In fact, there *have been* many charlatans and cranks making money selling ineffectual cures; it's not anti-scientific to either want substantiation of techno-solutionist claims, nor to desire regulation to protect people. It is good that people don't go blind when they buy alcohol anymore, and it is good that people can't buy cleaning solvents at strengths that are dangerous to them.
Even to take one of your examples at the beginning of the post-- batteries are powering e-bikes that can replace SUVs, and also, much larger batteries are being put into electric SUVs that are heavier and even more dangerous to vulnerable road users, increase wear and tear on the roads, and (while they don't have tailpipe emissions) still create air pollution from tire particles and drive poor land use bad urban policy.
I think there's more to tech skepticism than clout chasing, conspiracy, and science-denialism, and I think it's worth to it to engage seriously with the serious critiques.
Thoughtful tech skeptics are not who I'm talking about. It's the vocal & hysterical minority, some of whom have become influential. My well-documented bias is for human-scale design that leads to human flourishing. Technology leads to bombs & poison gas (awful) and air conditioning (wonderful).
Every type of tech has trade-offs, and I welcome those conversations.