213. Techno-Optimism

Many think the specific nature of a technology depends on the humans wielding it, but that tech ultimately serves humanity’s interests. Philosopher John McDermott challenges this view with a simple question: *whose* interests does tech serve?

-Links for the Curious-

[JAndersonGhost]

Part of the problem is that the bleeding edge tech is always, by its very nature, cost prohibitive to the vast majority of people. Therefore those who do have access to it are those who are already in power, which then then try to reinforce with their systemic advantage.

[Infantry]

I think very few things are apolitical, for all the reasons you mentioned. Everything happens because of someone trying to get something, solve a problem, etc and those only happen because of needs and wants by those doing the getting and solving. I don't see how any fulfillment of needs or wants isn't in some way influenced by ideology, informing what we think we need or want, and whats worth sacrificing or investing to meet those needs and wants. Technology is just another playing field for this game, one of many.

[jadeaffenjaeger]

Great episode! Even when assuming the best of intentions for "making the world a better place", another way in which looking for technological solutions to problems caused by technology is the rebound effect. This means that technology aimed at reducing use of resources through increased efficiency often ends up leading to a higher of that resource. Common examples are more efficient engines that just lead to bigger cars and the digitalization of workspaces that promised to save trees by getting rid of the paper trail.

Another great work on how our society is fundamentally optimistic about technology is "Technopoly" by Neil Postman.

[somecuriosities]

It astonishes me the number of otherwise highly educated people who, in matters like this, see themseleves (or their relation to the subject matter) as completely apolitical, not realising that their 'apolitical-ness' is, in of itself, inherently and inextricably political. Its like the nerd version of not being self aware lol

[PetersonSilva]

Really really good episode! It seems like this is a good piece to contrast to your take on sci-fi being apolitical

[zsdCKanVOIJANSO]

the puns are just getting better and better

[bthomson]

Btw your graphics are really both illuminating and adorable!

[Xob_Driesestig]

“Like I say: gut-wrenching”, haha very punny. Did you leave Google a stomach-turning review, or did you submit your results based on your initial gut reaction?

[michaelcherry]

I think that ultimately, the real issue is that it is impossible for human beings to be objective. We will always be subjective about everything. The idea that nerds would have no biases and simply concentrate on the problem also ignores the many historical instances of nerds who dove right in to create weapons, chemical agents, etc. with the clear intention of giving their "side" the edge. Does that doom innovation to being endlessly exploited for the benefit of the few over the many? Not necessarily. We just need to fully understand our subjectivity and try to allow for it. Ultimately, we're going to still make a ton of mistakes, but perhaps if we stop fooling ourselves about objectivity, maybe we can avoid the worst outcomes. Clearly, education, not just in facts and figures but in critical thinking and logic is a fundamental component of this. Without a populous with the tools to question and hold to account those that would push innovation in dangerous directions, we'll never get anywhere.

[MartinLichtblau]

Tech becomes ever more powerful ‒ so do individuals. Can use for good/bad. Engineers need ethical education in curriculum and design guidelines. Tech won't save us. We need to change the rules of the games, like culture, etc.

[judgeomega]

underlying the entire discussion is the undefined term 'benefit to humanity'.
in the long term, survival of the fittest has served life well. we evolved to be who we are by our ancestors destroying most every competitor. yet we have been indoctrinated into a society where such viciousness is shunned.

[mykotron]

Technology gets cheaper and cheaper as it grows in efficiency and ubiquitousness. Politics need be improved, corporations regulated in order to make full use of and guide technological advancement.

[bthomson]

The enlightenment in reverse! So back to the dark ages! That's what it sometimes feels like to those of us who graduated college in the 1970s!

[danmcneil]

Excellent!
Unfortunately, we're on the path of "tech breaks it, tech can fix it" backed by non-nerds.

[MarkkuS]

Good video, but if you want to get more viewers you need to up your headline and thumbnail game.

[Michelle_Wellbeck]

The abuse of technological innovation by systems of power is largely due to the institutional creation of experts whose domain of knowledge is isolated within discrete fields to obscure the wider and 2nd order implications caused by the technology they are developing.

While mechanisms of failsafes do exist and function to a certain extent mainly being rigorous ethics committees such functions are absent in society's most powerful bodies producing innovation namely being government contractors and private corporations.

Nevertheless, I believe people of high intellect are necessarily aware of the ethical issues surrounding their field. Furthermore, society is advancing towards a greater collective awareness of large scale societal issues; including issues of class, gender, race, and environment. Ultimately, it rests on the responsibility of the individual to "do the right thing" to make technology a force for societal good.

Lastly, It is imperative that society not only recognise individuals who have made great contributions to technological innovation itself, but it must also recognise individuals who have contributed towards the goal of making technology work for the betterment of society, the foremost example in my opinion being Edward Snowden.