I work in technology and I think that humanity needs to remember that at the end of the day technology is only as good as our social constructs.
Technology should work to serve nobler goals, not serve hedonism or temporary greed.
Advancement for advancement's sake is not noble without purpose.
We must build things that last. All things crumble to dust eventually, but the legacy it leaves should aim to be positive.
A lot of technology I see being made seems to do far more harm than good.
I'm using a device (a smartphone) that I only dreamed about having as a child, and now as an adult it often feels mundane.
But it costs so much money, I have to finance it.
But without it, my life and work would be much harder. It's a genuinely good piece of technology, but at enormous cost. It's expensive in part because supply chains are expensive, and they are expensive from greed. The rest is just more greed.
I've been made poorer by this essential device.
Is that really just?
Mind you I'm not like being bankrupted by it (I've had a tough month though) or anything but it's still money I wouldn't have had to spend 10 years ago.
Point is society seems to be tending to more and more towards being forced to be bled more and more just to keep technology that we've come to rely on going. And although there are things people can do to save money, overall it doesn't change the fact these are new bills we have to pay and new devices we have to pay for.
@Elizafox We don't think of it like this, but decades ago having a land line phone became a necessity. Before that it was considered a luxury for for business and rich people. That is how they ended up being regulated as a utility.
Yet we live in other times. For about 40 years all regulations favor business over consumers and workers. So much that we call "deregulation" was is really changing laws against consumers.
@Elizafox A partial (not full) counterpoint is... a fair amount of normal people are replacing their desktop-experience computer and internet service for it, with a smartphone and cellular service. Still more expensive (unless you run trash-tier Android devices that never get updates, on a low-tier MVNO, or something), but that helps offset things.
@Elizafox Still, it's disgusting that after financing $825 for 2 years... my phone will no longer have feature updates guaranteed, and only one year of security updates guaranteed. And that's /good/ for the Android space, some devices never get updates from new.
And, between poor serviceability, a lot of devices being nowhere near the performance plateau (outside of iOS anyway), and then mobile apps/sites demanding more power, you're basically forced to upgrade to do the same things.
@Elizafox (Fuck JavaScript, fuck ads, fuck websites that aren't size-optimized and shove megabytes down your throat to look at text...)
Ukpol, welfare policy Show more
@Elizafox I'd not say it's because of "greed" or "capitalism", but instead — *monopoly* (and *monopsony*) or oligopoly (cartels, syndicates etc.); which is supported by *dumping* on international level, and *lobbying* and *corruption* on the national.
All of those are very old problems, and have little to do with the technology, except maybe the scales.
@Elizafox IDK, maybe psychologists/sociologists might shed some light on the roots…
@Elizafox You should aim lower in the market. There is nothing my £140 Uliphone android phone can't do (almost) that any flagship can. And it has a considerably better battery life. Don't fall for the flagship meme.
@plesuvius @Elizafox Agreed... I got Cubot X18 ($110) phones for my kids and they work good.
@shellkr @plesuvius Ironically it's cheaper in the short-term to finance it for me, 'cause I got good credit with T-Mobile. In the long run I might consider something like that. I'm gonna need to get a new device anyway, since I really need to get something dual-SIM for $job.
@Elizafox
the "elimination of careers" part leaves me divided: on one hand, less work for the same outcome is good and having mandatory jobs for their own sake seems soul-crushing, but on the other hand our society is hung up on the idea that everyone needs to do a job full time and I don't want people to starve
@Elizafox Yes, technology, just like science, and probably arts, aren't intrinsically noble. Their overall effect depends on the broader social climate.
Although there apparently are a lot of folks in STEAM, who do it for it's own sake, with little account for any political aspects.
Can't blame them though — they're usually professionals, and it's their choice to ignore any political consequences.
@Elizafox Do you not feel though that the broader aims of Information and COMMUNICATION technology are well aligned with broad societal goals and will end up enabling them? I understand that technology should be long term but I still see most all progress as positive in this sphere.
We come up with innovative ways to maim others, to try to enrich ourselves at the expense of others, to eliminate the careers people have devoted themselves merely in the pursuit of greed. In the process we lie to ourselves, "this is progress." Towards what? Wealth and easy living for a few on the backs of the many?
Humans seem to think mostly about themselves, and in my view nothing is more dangerous. Humans must look at the bigger picture