[nonrandomstring]

> I'm constantly worried

That is itself the catastrophe.

The enlightenment was supposed to chase away the shadows. But as the radius of the light of science and technology expands so does the circumference of the darkness beyond.

We know more than ever how vulnerable we are. We know of many more horrible ways to die. We see ever more beautiful possible futures that may never be reached. It is the age old cost of knowledge since Eden. [1]

But take hope, the alternative is ignorance and total darkness. And there are worse things than monsters in the shadows. A greater concern is our own death-drive toward Thanatos - in that we _know_ what we are doing, throw caution to the wind, mock as naysayers and Cassandras anyone who points out the obvious trajectories into tragedy and blindly try to "push through" as if technology were a separate force in itself, rather than an extension of our being.

Humane technology (technological humanism) is the only antidote, but that requires putting people before profit, and saying that comes at a cost here. [2]

[1] I'm just channeling Mumford here

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30799567

[SpodGaju]

Wonderful to see my own sentiment reflected here.

Let me add, that to embrace the darkness, instead of pushing it away, is where we will find answers. I wish more people could see how frenetic knowledge makes them. I found forgetting helps me the most.

And I agree with your [2].

[dcsommer]

What alternatives to Technological Humanism are not antidotes? It sounds like you consider the anxiety of the age a/the major problem (I agree), but is there really only one solution? It seems like there are other possibilities worth discussion.

[nonrandomstring]

> What alternatives to Technological Humanism are not antidotes?

Sorry I needed to re-read the post to think about your points.

There are alternatives but almost all are unpleasant. There is the "pharmaceutical society" of Huxley. Possibly humans can be molded into something resembling worker ants who will accept any degree of technological dominance and dependency without complaint if mentally modified. In some parts of the world where 1 in 3 people take a prescriptions such as Prozac we are probably some of the way there.

There is "ambient domination" of the kind of P.K Dick (Ubik), D. Potter's Cold Lazarus, or A. Niccol's GATTACA, where technological dominance has effectively disappeared, leaving a superficially pleasant and peaceful world, but its effects are soaked into a defeated "last man" culture of "post-humans".

Or there's endless Soviet style struggle, permanent technological war against invisible or virtual outside enemies, as in G. Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four. N. Klein's idea of "crisis capitalism" outlines one form of the general case - and if you allow the conspiracy theorists their way "plandemics" (yes they say that), and even climate change are a vehicles for such eternal paternalism.

Those are just three off the top of my head. I'm not a sci-fi writer or "futurologist" (shudder), but I'm sure there's a dozen models for dystopias in which digital technology plays a major part, drugging, monitoring and propagandising humankind at behest of the few.

> It sounds like you consider the anxiety of the age a/the major problem (I agree)

Not so much, I think every age has had its deep anxieties, I grew up in the cold-war fever of the 80s when we did nuke drills at school and hid in the basement.

What is uniquely worrying about now is the wilful ignorance and acceptance. Anxiety is a symptom. What distinguishes anxiety from fear is that fear is about something, whereas anxiety is diffuse. People are choosing not to know about their world (retreat into amusement, comforting fake news etc), and celebrating their ignorance of technology as a form of magic. Despite doing that we still suffer the crippling effects of anomie, alienation, disconnection, and so on, but no longer have somethiing concrete to point to as the source. Under Marxism it was the Bourgeoisie, but today's "One Percet" don't cut it, being almost accidental villains/co-victims of invisible cybernetic currents.

> But is there really only one solution?

No certainly not. But I am foremost a scientist, and came late in life to social philosophy and psychology, so I favour answers that rely on human rationality and organisation (I realise that on HN there is huge cynicism toward that and lots of talk about how "dumb people are" and "what they really want is", and talk of "sheep following network effects". I think that kinda goes with an immature (pre-2013) entrepreneurial mindset.

Given an absence of hope for beneficent corporations or governments for me the only hope is a future in which people retake technology in some way. But exactly what that means is still something I am working out. Whoever solves that will not just improve the world, but get rich too. So far Gates. Zuckerberg et al have failed, because "scale" is something they put before purpose.

> there are other possibilities worth discussion.

Please check out digital vegan and humane technology as I'd love to talk about those other possibilities.