

In Defense of Technology (2014) - sloria
http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/andrew-ohagan-technology/?_r=0

======
ThomPete
I think what is missing from this conversation which both this article and
people like Marc Andreesen forget is that technology isnt just progress its
also change.

The thing is we are not all actual beneficiaries from technology. In fact a
lot are victims who loose their jobs, get smaller paychecks and basically lost
the ability to offer their skills to the workforce.

Technology gives and technology takes. What it takes is increasingly important
to have a critical view on because something more fundamental is going on I
think that is going to be increasingly clear.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
Technological change has destroyed industries and livelihoods in the past, but
it also created more opportunities as it went. The anti-luddite argument is
that there were more jobs made available to the people despite the heavy
labour intensive work being disrupted.

These days though it might be different. An interesting extension to your
point, and using your terminology, is that the rate of what technology 'takes'
is possibly beginning to exceed the rate at which it 'gives'. Things might be
changing too quickly for the market to adapt and ensure gainful employment to
people.

~~~
ThomPete
Thats my point.

Look at these two graphs

[https://plot.ly/~BethS/8/job-growth-by-decade-in-the-
united-...](https://plot.ly/~BethS/8/job-growth-by-decade-in-the-united-
states/)

[http://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/d...](http://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/destroying.jobs_.chart1x910_0.jpg)

The more jobs created have been because of globalization not because
technology creates more jobs. (My claim)

Furthermore the less money is being made even though production goes up
(because of technology)

This is the problem we are facing and so I am simply not buying the luddite
fallacy argument it is in itself a fallacy.

Another way to look at this is that technology replaces higher and higher
levels of abstract thinking.

The horses that where replaced by cars didn't find new jobs.

------
SocksCanClose
Your frame of reference is a bit off. To wit:

You say: "technology isn't just programs, [it is] also change... a lot [of
people] are victims who lose their jobs..."

When in fact, the "victims" of this process aren't subject to the technology,
qua technology (technology is simply a tool - derivative of the Greek "tekhne"
for "art" or "craft"), which is to say, one doesn't create a technology which
then has a mind of its own (yet), but rather, they create tools that other
individuals then have a _choice_ to either use, or not.

And so when you say "technology gives[,] and technology takes," what you
really mean is "people chose how to spend their [time/money], and [those
choices have consequences]."

Which is to say that you are implicitly saying "We ought to decide how people
chose to spend their [time/money]".

Would your reaction be the same to the ironworker who made a living on
horseshoes two hundred years ago?

Of what do you wish to be "Critical"? Of choice? Of giving people the ability
to spend less of their time and energy on certain tasks?

Five hundred years ago human beings spend most of their time producing life-
sustaining staples -- growing what for bread, chickens and cows and hogs for
protein, vegetables for vitamins and nutrients. Now we can buy a week's worth
of sustenance (which used to quite literally consume 12 hours of labor per
day), grown to higher standards, in greater quantity for less than $50 -- the
equivalent of a single day's labor at minimum wage.

Do you wish to be "critical" of this tekhne as well?

~~~
ThomPete
The factory worker does not have a choice about whether his employer want to
use robots or not.

You are proving my point by applying the very flawed logic of the luddite
fallacy that I am really critiquing.

------
guywithalogin
Technology for me will ultimately be judged by the degree in which it's use
requires the commodification of my self. From my taste in entertainment to
more invasive information such as my location and who I interact with, I feel
it's important to put into consideration who I'm trading this information with
and for what in exchange.

As long as a service requires my submission into an database which will be
sold off and used to strengthen marketing and other forms of persuasion, I
have no choice but to assume the worst case usage. With that assumption I feel
it is most ethical to mostly not participate.

I hope that I'll be able to sit back and hop on when popular tech services
have given me an alternative form of payment other than my person as an
information commodity. I have no idea as to whether that day will ever come.

