|
|
|
|
|
|
by dwaltrip
35 days ago
|
|
|
Let's pick one example: E-waste. It’s a negative externality. We can argue about the magnitude and the details, but the basic fact remains. There are ways of dealing with negative externalities. Some work better than others. The details do matter a lot. And we definitely need better ways of tackling problems like this, especially when the cost is less immediate. The more diffuse, temporally removed, downstream, hidden, or controversial it is, the harder it is to get people to take the problem seriously. Let alone actually do anything about it. We can take on these challenges. Or we can largely ignore them / throw our hands in the air, and watch the consequences unfold. As much as we are able to, I’d like to try the former. Computing can still move forward and innovate at a rapid rate. |
|
|
I do and would want to buy tech that I'm not coerced into to throwing away after a year. It's insane to be how many objects today have batteries that are sealed inside and are meant to be thrown away after- that should be regulated.
But that seems to me to be an implementation detail rather than aspect that's worthy of an entire manifesto.
I do think the political aspects of things like Ring and Flock cameras and Palantir are super important (the reenforcing of existing power structures part).
But I don't get the folding in of this idea that not consuming computing devices is part of the solution- Like I said, it feels like the planned obsolescence of all computing devices and software is fundamental to the field.