[noncoml]

> Tech for tech's sake helps nobody

If it wasn’t for science, art and tech for their own sake we would still be on the trees gathering bananas

[rdiddly]

Probably a true statement, in that those folks made contributions, but also misleading, since technology specifically, usually has a goal or outcome in mind. A problem to solve. Like let's assume one of the first technological innovations on that long arc from banana-gathering to whatever we're doing now, was somebody inventing a better way to gather bananas. Or a substitute for bananas. Or a way to grow your own bananas in a controlled way (which I guess would be agriculture, one of our foundational technologies). All of these are easy to imagine and not far-fetched. So were they done by some poseur/pretender who only cared about bananas, and we should look down on them, or were they nobly doing tech for tech's own sake? I don't think the dichotomy exists.

[johnnyanmac]

>since technology specifically, usually has a goal or outcome in mind

sure, all ambitions have a goal. I think the point is that not all goals have some economic goal in mind. The original blogging platform and internet as a structure did not have the goal of monetizing writing. And we're honestly seeing the consequences of attempts and failures to try and monetize such stuff on the net.

Maybe there was prestige, or research grants, or whatnot, but it's clear that there's many pieces of tech who's goals wasn't to sell off to a billionaire and retire in style. I'd call such research "tech for tech's sake".

[breather]

Art? Yes, of course! I have no clue what you're referring to with tech, though. Throughout history development of tech has almost always driven by seeking economic leverage. I'm sure there are exceptions but I can't think of any.

Not sure what you're referring to with science at all.

[musicale]

> Throughout history development of tech has almost always driven by seeking economic leverage. I'm sure there are exceptions but I can't think of any.

What about:

- curiosity (much of science, mathematics, etc.)

- artistic expression (musical instruments, demoscene)

- fortunate accidents (penicillin)

- just tinkering around (all sorts of inventions)

- play and fun (many non-commercial computer games)

- communication (telegraph, telephone, email, ...)

- self-expression (blogs)

- being dissatisfied with something and trying to change it (many more inventions)

- basic needs (advances in food, shelter, medicine...)

- trying to gain a military advantage (all sorts of weaponry and defenses)

- exploration (e.g. traveling to the bottom of the ocean, or landing on the moon)

- ideology/philosophy/religion (GNU and free software; cathedrals; pyramids)

etc.

At the end of the day much of technology is motivated by human needs, interests, desires, fears, etc.

OP's move from tech to comedy writing shows that interest or passion can be powerful motivators.

[breather]

I'm as keen to wax poetic about the non-economic potential of technology as the next person, but I'm not deluding myself into thinking that was why the technology was developed in the first place.

Also, a military advantage is an economic one, there's no real difference between the concepts.

[wrs]

So you’re saying all of technology is the result of saying “we could make money if we had a thing that did X”, and none of it is the result of “we found a way to do X because we thought it would be cool.”

If nothing else, you just dismissed most of mathematics and basic physics.

[latency-guy2]

I think you value "art" too much, and think too little of "tech".

It's also not confusing to me what the other person is saying, maybe you can clarify what your misunderstandings are before anyone can address them.

[pizzafeelsright]

Please explain in detail. I'm not seeing the connection.