Very interesting, but you, like Marc, make the same bid that it is undeniable that technology is beneficial. There is no real introspection about whether there have been cultures that had a higher quality of life that simply failed because another group, likely with tech, destroyed them.
Tech is a self-fulfilling condition. If you don't h…
Very interesting, but you, like Marc, make the same bid that it is undeniable that technology is beneficial. There is no real introspection about whether there have been cultures that had a higher quality of life that simply failed because another group, likely with tech, destroyed them.
Tech is a self-fulfilling condition. If you don't have tech, those with tech will delete you one way or another. As such, you can make the claim that tech makes life better simply by claiming there are ample instances where not tech means you will be conquered or killed.
We will continue to pursue tech, and it will likely kill us, not because tech is good or bad, but because those who want dominance will use tech heedless of the downstream consequences.
Well, my whole point is to debate the idea that technology is always net positive for humanity. I disagree with that. But your example is actually a good point: not tech means also that nature kills you and that's, deep down, Andreessen's whole point. I agree with that thoroughly.
As a clarification, I do not make the claim that low tech adoption means nature kills you.
My point is that cultures with low/slow tech adoption that may have a superior means of life get killed by sociopathic cultures with high tech adoption.
It is not unreasonable to make a broad claim that tech almost always leads to domination and death, and therefore the net benefits of tech (A/C, refrigeration, antibiotics) have had an unacceptable cost through genocide and war.
Take as a case in point your contention that writing is an absolute benefit. It is not hard to imagine that writing is a negative for society by accelerating the dispersal of technology and dramatically reducing societal diversity. Not saying writing is bad, but that it is not supportable to say that writing is a priori good.
I do recognize that there are certain tech advances that are absolutely quality of life improvements, notably the advances in the support of women during childbirth.
I think the fundamental issue with your and Marc's arguments is something that philosophers have been debating for many thousands of years, which is "what makes a good life." My issue is that there is an unquestioning assumption that how we live now is a good life, and therefore continuing on this path would inevitably lead to a better version of a good life. This has been debated by far smarter folks than Marc, you and me.
If you are going to make broad claims about "positive for humanity" then there is some responsibility to define your terms. What does positive for humanity mean? Freedom? Security? Stuff? Longevity? And for whom - Capital owners, the educated, the "useless" poor?
Marc's essay is just "smartdumb." He is obviously a very smart guy, but also not really willing or capable to dig under his assumptions, so he uses his intellect to support his unexamined positions and makes wildly unsupported assertions. Without introspection you end up with sophisticated nonsense.
I find it very interesting for a tech CEO to say this about technology! I agree with a few things you said: first how to live a good life is a matter of personal preference and should be defined somehow. I'd say that technology has improved our quality of life and expected lifespan over the centuries, which, if anything else, should be universally accepted measures of what a good life requires.
My article debates Marc's precisely on this in the sense that not all technology forwards these goals. I explicitly use a few well-known examples (atomic weapons and Facebook, for instance) to illustrate my points. So we agree on that. Where I think we disagree is that I feel you assume that tech is default net negative unless it's for very specific uses or steered carefully and therefore low tech is better. I don't think that's the case. Laying out a strong argument that writing is more bad than good is hard. It's too easy to argue for the contrary. I agree, however, that wide gaps between societies in technological advancement are a primary source of suffering for humans. That's a political and moral question that neither Marc nor I have touched upon, though.
I don't assume tech is negative, but I think much if not most is. To reinforce your point: Marc says that the Internet has reduced loneliness. That is preposterous on the face. All measures of anxiety, depression and anomie are much higher than they were in the 60s to 80s.
If we erased the Internet, we would arguably be better off. Sure, we would lose some things, but in the aggregate, we would have a chance at preserving our democracy.
I would also challenge the idea that the targets are longevity and some vaguely determined "quality of life." Most serious thinkers through history would not claim either as clear, suitable or adequate. Quality of Life doesn't really even define anything. I would claim that most Americans at least have a very poor quality of life, and are only ahead in the count of "stuff."
If we are talking about the expansion of the rights and personhood of women, minorities, and the disabled, I would say that this could be argued as a quality of life improvement. Yet I think technology had not much to do with that.
What if you just posted what you or Marc mean by quality of life. Climate control? The ability to go to Europe? What does it actually mean, and perhaps what does it miss, such as free time, dignity, lack of fear, and contact with nature?
Very interesting, but you, like Marc, make the same bid that it is undeniable that technology is beneficial. There is no real introspection about whether there have been cultures that had a higher quality of life that simply failed because another group, likely with tech, destroyed them.
Tech is a self-fulfilling condition. If you don't have tech, those with tech will delete you one way or another. As such, you can make the claim that tech makes life better simply by claiming there are ample instances where not tech means you will be conquered or killed.
We will continue to pursue tech, and it will likely kill us, not because tech is good or bad, but because those who want dominance will use tech heedless of the downstream consequences.
Well, my whole point is to debate the idea that technology is always net positive for humanity. I disagree with that. But your example is actually a good point: not tech means also that nature kills you and that's, deep down, Andreessen's whole point. I agree with that thoroughly.
As a clarification, I do not make the claim that low tech adoption means nature kills you.
My point is that cultures with low/slow tech adoption that may have a superior means of life get killed by sociopathic cultures with high tech adoption.
It is not unreasonable to make a broad claim that tech almost always leads to domination and death, and therefore the net benefits of tech (A/C, refrigeration, antibiotics) have had an unacceptable cost through genocide and war.
Take as a case in point your contention that writing is an absolute benefit. It is not hard to imagine that writing is a negative for society by accelerating the dispersal of technology and dramatically reducing societal diversity. Not saying writing is bad, but that it is not supportable to say that writing is a priori good.
I do recognize that there are certain tech advances that are absolutely quality of life improvements, notably the advances in the support of women during childbirth.
I think the fundamental issue with your and Marc's arguments is something that philosophers have been debating for many thousands of years, which is "what makes a good life." My issue is that there is an unquestioning assumption that how we live now is a good life, and therefore continuing on this path would inevitably lead to a better version of a good life. This has been debated by far smarter folks than Marc, you and me.
If you are going to make broad claims about "positive for humanity" then there is some responsibility to define your terms. What does positive for humanity mean? Freedom? Security? Stuff? Longevity? And for whom - Capital owners, the educated, the "useless" poor?
Marc's essay is just "smartdumb." He is obviously a very smart guy, but also not really willing or capable to dig under his assumptions, so he uses his intellect to support his unexamined positions and makes wildly unsupported assertions. Without introspection you end up with sophisticated nonsense.
For calibration, I am a tech CEO.
I find it very interesting for a tech CEO to say this about technology! I agree with a few things you said: first how to live a good life is a matter of personal preference and should be defined somehow. I'd say that technology has improved our quality of life and expected lifespan over the centuries, which, if anything else, should be universally accepted measures of what a good life requires.
My article debates Marc's precisely on this in the sense that not all technology forwards these goals. I explicitly use a few well-known examples (atomic weapons and Facebook, for instance) to illustrate my points. So we agree on that. Where I think we disagree is that I feel you assume that tech is default net negative unless it's for very specific uses or steered carefully and therefore low tech is better. I don't think that's the case. Laying out a strong argument that writing is more bad than good is hard. It's too easy to argue for the contrary. I agree, however, that wide gaps between societies in technological advancement are a primary source of suffering for humans. That's a political and moral question that neither Marc nor I have touched upon, though.
Great!
I don't assume tech is negative, but I think much if not most is. To reinforce your point: Marc says that the Internet has reduced loneliness. That is preposterous on the face. All measures of anxiety, depression and anomie are much higher than they were in the 60s to 80s.
If we erased the Internet, we would arguably be better off. Sure, we would lose some things, but in the aggregate, we would have a chance at preserving our democracy.
I would also challenge the idea that the targets are longevity and some vaguely determined "quality of life." Most serious thinkers through history would not claim either as clear, suitable or adequate. Quality of Life doesn't really even define anything. I would claim that most Americans at least have a very poor quality of life, and are only ahead in the count of "stuff."
If we are talking about the expansion of the rights and personhood of women, minorities, and the disabled, I would say that this could be argued as a quality of life improvement. Yet I think technology had not much to do with that.
What if you just posted what you or Marc mean by quality of life. Climate control? The ability to go to Europe? What does it actually mean, and perhaps what does it miss, such as free time, dignity, lack of fear, and contact with nature?
We can define quality of life in different ways, with different variables. It doesn't really matter that much which one you take. Let's take for instance self-reported happiness, which could be a good proxy: https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction#happiness-over-time
It doesn't matter which data you look at, technology has been so far a net positive in many many ways, like child mortality: (https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality), poverty decrease (https://ourworldindata.org/poverty), etc. About the more recent digital innovations, I'm not that sure, though.
And have you read "The Dawn of Everything?"