|
Just wanted to comment about the quote at the top of this article: > If you could choose only one of the following two inventions, indoor plumbing or the Internet, which would you choose? One feeling I've been having a lot recently is that the majority of new technology is no longer "in service of the people". That is, it no longer is created to solve pressing problems everyday people have. And, as a technologist who was super optimistic about the direction of tech in the late 90s, this has made me pretty depressed. If you think about things like indoor plumbing, electricity, washing machines, dishwashers, airplanes, etc., they all basically solved an intrinsic, existing problem people had, and they drastically improved life for people with access to them. This isn't to say they don't have some substantial negative side effects, but they were created with the idea that people would buy and use them to improve their lives. Nowadays, I feel like new tech is either (a) created to addict us, or (b) just there to help solve some problems tech created in the first place. I see these "addiction economics" everywhere these days: social media obviously, but also things like the economics of video games ("gamification" really means: how can we addict you), crypto is just another tool for gamblers (and ransomware attackers), etc. Even most of the stuff around VR/AR is asking for solutions to problems people don't have: Apple's Vision Pro may be an amazing piece of tech, but the open question is still "why do we want to use this thing?" On my second point, working in fintech, so much of "fintech" is just "dealing with the insane complexity we've created in the first place", e.g. the way we pay for healthcare. There are obvious exceptions: I wouldn't say the nuclear weapons we invented in the 40s were really "in service of the people", and as controversial as they may be in some respects, I think self-driving cars definitely fit in the mold of improving people's lives. On my point about side effects, there are also obviously negative side effects to even beneficial inventions; maybe one reason our "pace of innovation" has slowed is that it was never sustainable in the first place, as my summer of continual 105+ degree days is attesting. But I really think our economy has changed over the past 25 years or so such that in many cases the payoff is better when entrepreneurs just find a more successful way to addict us. When I look around my own life and ways to improve it, most of them involve using technology less. Pretty much the only invention that I think would have a significant positive impact on my life and wellbeing at the moment is a machine that automatically folds laundry, and I don't see a huge corporate focus on that area. |
It's an empty question that relies on the internet not being life-or-death.