[erintumeran]

People overestimate the positive impact of technology. Of course in Silicon Valley you're considered crazy if you don't believe technology solves everything. But it's not as simple as that. My grandparents for example, had no internet, no Facebook, no iPhones. They're doing great and have led very fulfilling lives. Most of the positivity in their lives came from their relationship with each other and their kids. Of course they are only one example, and that is not a lot of data. But we know that there are millions of people in Silicon Valley right now who have the fastest internet, the most amazing social media apps, they are young and can take advantage of all the modern technology in existence, and yet they might feel isolated and be totally depressed in their lives.

[ItsMattyG]

>People overestimate the positive impact of technology. Of course in Silicon Valley you're considered crazy if you don't believe technology solves everything. But it's not as simple as that. My grandparents for example, had no internet, no Facebook, no iPhones. They're doing great and have led very fulfilling lives. Most of the positivity in their lives came from their relationship with each other and their kids. Of course they are only one example, and that is not a lot of data. But we know that there are millions of people in Silicon Valley right now who have the fastest internet, the most amazing social media apps, they are young and can take advantage of all the modern technology in existence, and yet they might feel isolated and be totally depressed in their lives.

I mean, technology is probably not going to make rich people's lives better at this point unless it removes some substantial annoyance. I suspect that like money, there's diminishing returns after a certain point.

But, for someone who has never had internet before, to get connected (one of Mark's three stated goals in the video) is life changing.

[an_ko]

It comes down to definitions. What is "positive impact" to you? To me, it means "increasing the total amount of human understanding", not "making everybod happy and Amish".

Edit: By the way, this is the essential difference between Bentham's and Mill's versions of utilitarian philosophy, if you'd like to research further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Utilitarianis...

[quxbar]

I'd like to barge in and call false dichotomy on this. Despite the excellent citation, I don't think it's correct. I believe technology should let people enjoy more of their lives, not replace it. Understanding is essential to this, but it becomes cheaper as your technology improves, so you're not sacrificing happiness at a fixed rate. We've already gone from industrial steam engines to tiny glass wonder-phones in a couple hundred years, what if technology continues to become less intrusive? Maybe we'll all be look amish yet be omnipotent.

[meric]

human knowledge != human understanding.

You can read about humans, to understand humans you have to form relationships with them and experience them yourself. An analogy would be reading K&R compared to bashing against GCC.