[HN Gopher] Technosolutionism Isn't the Fix
___________________________________________________________________
Technosolutionism Isn't the Fix
Author : pseudolus
Score : 95 points
Date : 2021-01-18 13:27 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hedgehogreview.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hedgehogreview.com)
| amelius wrote:
| Not yet. But just wait until the singularity is here.
| beamatronic wrote:
| I have released a new app that will help you determine when the
| singularity has arrived
| isoskeles wrote:
| This article doesn't present a thoughtful definition on what
| technology, and by extension technosolutionism, is. This is what
| we get:
|
| > Technosolutionism is a way of understanding the world that
| assigns priority to engineered solutions to human problems. Its
| first principle is the notion that an app, a machine, a software
| program, or an algorithm offers the best solution to any
| complicated problem.
|
| As a clear example, the article proposes that contract tracing
| apps are ineffective unless we are also testing the population at
| risk. Okay, where does testing come from? Testing is also a
| technological solution. A human does not look at your sample with
| a pen and pad and make a decision on whether you have covid. The
| sample doesn't speak to us and admit actually it does have covid.
|
| Testing is technology. Vaccination is technology. I'll even argue
| that washing your hands is technology, in the sense that >99% of
| us interpret the message as to use mass-produced soap with water
| delivered to your sink through plumbing.
|
| ---
|
| Technology usually makes life easier in some way of convenience.
| Although it can be unclear if it really makes life easier, as
| technology will often come at the cost of maintaining it. The
| invention of cars probably looked like a huge convenience, and
| out of it birthed an entire industry where people made their
| livelihoods, and now we've moved on to hating ourselves for
| inventing cars and ruining the environment, creating another
| industry that creates technology to make the use of energy have
| less of an effect on the environment. One day, we'll have a
| problem with that too.
|
| My biggest issue with this article isn't that it's against
| technosolutionism, it's that it tries to draw some ARBITRARY line
| in the sand where the procession of technological progress must
| end. Sending kids to school over Zoom is where we draw the line?
| What about the problem where public schools closely model the
| idea of working at an industrial factory?
| causalmodels wrote:
| My issue with the article that o treat technosolutionism as
| something imposed on society by engineers misses the point
| entirely. Technosolutionism is a response to the complete failure
| of our deliberative democratic institutions to deliver actual
| solutions to our problems. It is not reasonable to ask people to
| trust their institutions when they have frequently and completely
| failed the people they were created to serve. If we want people
| to trust deliberative democratic processes, and I think we
| should, then we need to ensure those bodies are actually capable
| of functioning.
| apocalypstyx wrote:
| The answer to technosolutionism will be more technosolutionism.
| smolder wrote:
| As it happens, I'm working on an app to help people find
| alternatives to technosolutionism! :)
| [deleted]
| tim333 wrote:
| Technosolutionism doesn't seem to have a dictionary definition
| but the author seems to use if for crap tech fixes like apps for
| covid rather than good tech fixes like masks and vaccines. If
| that's the case then technosolutionism is trivially not the fix
| by definition.
|
| On the other hand good tech advances mostly are the answer to
| pandemic problems like the plague, smallpox etc.
| davidivadavid wrote:
| There's a whole cottage industry of journalism based on
| criticism of "technology" that's predicated on the idea that
| "technology" == Silicon-Valley-based software/apps.
|
| Of course, that has the downside of overlooking the fact that
| most problems are actually solved by technology, technology
| being what humans create to solve their problems.
|
| Somehow, mRNA vaccines, which are to a large extent more _high
| tech_ than most CRUD software developed in SV, isn 't
| considered "technology".
| bonoboTP wrote:
| I think it's specifically "tech", the shortened form, that
| refers to websites and apps in today's usage. "Technology",
| the full word includes medical advances, aerospace,
| innovative construction materials, solar panels, whatever.
|
| What really drives me up the wall is when people call a
| library or a software framework or platform "a technology"
| (countable noun) in software. Like "Silverlight technology".
| I'm like "no, it's still a minor facet of information
| technology or computing technology, it's not a technology on
| its own".
| balozi wrote:
| Consider the application of technosolutionism as described to
| other modern spheres, example climate change, where the economic
| stakes are extremely high for the ordinary citizen.
| makerofspoons wrote:
| It is under reported in media and public service campaigns
| about climate that we can no longer mitigate the problem merely
| by cutting emissions- we have committed ourselves to carbon
| sequestration which is the unproven brainchild of
| technosolutionism and most of us never got a vote.
| curiousllama wrote:
| > Technosolutionists were blithely dismissive of such proven
| measures [...] because the recommendations relied on the public
| (that mass of humanity whom technosolutionists, in the main, view
| as irrational and misguided) to adhere to them voluntarily.
|
| Big fan of techno-solutionist critique in general, but the one
| critique that frustrates me is "Solution X is bad because we
| could do Solution Y instead." Don't yell at people doing
| something to help (as it happens, probably the _only_ way they
| know to help) because some other people, with some other
| expertise, could theoretically do it differently/better/more
| human.
|
| > the same sort of surveillance used to track the spread of a
| virus can just as easily track one's movements during a political
| protest
|
| This is the type of critique that's productive: "your thing helps
| in one way, but not in another; let's figure out how to max(good)
| and min(bad)"
| LiquidSky wrote:
| >Don't yell at people doing something to help (as it happens,
| probably the _only_ way they know to help) because some other
| people, with some other expertise, could theoretically do it
| differently/better/more human.
|
| This seems to rest on the premise that doing something is
| always better than doing nothing, which may actually not be the
| case. It's possible that the "solution" just makes things
| worse/complicates implementing better, longer-term solutions.
|
| The "_only_ way they know to help" part especially raises red
| flags, because it's exactly that narrow-mindedness and
| ignorance of context and alternatives that leads to "if all you
| have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" thinking. A big
| problem with "technosolutionism", as the article calls it, is
| precisely people forcing complex social, political, economic,
| cultural, etc. problems into the technical paradigms with which
| they are familiar, and then attempting to solve those problems
| as if they were technical or engineering issues.
| curiousllama wrote:
| > This seems to rest on the premise that doing something is
| always better than doing nothing
|
| Not always, just often. Typically, smart people trying hard
| to help end up helping. This is my point: you're saying "stop
| trying to help if you're not capable of totally solving the
| problem." Giving one piece of a super complicated puzzle is a
| legit contribution.
|
| Imagine I build "Uber for Food Banks." Instead of a physical
| food bank, you punch in that app "I need help this month" and
| someone delivers food to you for free. Imagine it takes off
| and triples the amount of food aid in the US.
|
| This technosolution completely, 100% ignores the "complex,
| social political, economic, cultural etc." components of food
| insecurity. It won't solve the problem.
|
| A valid critique is: "Because social services beyond food are
| serendipitously delivered through traditional food bank
| infra, you need to help sustain the traditional infra while
| expanding the delivery, even if the infra may look different
| (e.g., transform into medical clinics)."
|
| A bad critique is: "Because social services beyond food are
| serendipitously delivered through traditional food bank
| infra, you shouldn't build Uber for Food Banks."
|
| Rich people don't get to look at a problem and say "the only
| solution is a perfect solution." Help how you can, dude.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" may also
| be relevant here. By all means, criticize proposals to help
| weed out those that are truly bad and to refine those with
| problems into something better, but don't rule them out
| entirely because they don't check every box.
|
| Obviously every situation is different and cost-to-benefit
| must always be weighed, but I think it's often better to
| implement an imperfect solution while waiting on something
| better.
| yepguy wrote:
| > It's possible that the "solution" just makes things
| worse/complicates implementing better, longer-term solutions.
|
| I would go further, and suggest that nearly all social
| interventions make things worse. Extreme caution is
| especially necessary if the intervention is top-down.
| vncecartersknee wrote:
| >Big fan of techno-solutionist critique in general, but the one
| critique that frustrates me is "Solution X is bad because we
| could do Solution Y instead." Don't yell at people doing
| something to help (as it happens, probably the _only_ way they
| know to help) because some other people, with some other
| expertise, could theoretically do it differently/better/more
| human.
|
| not exactly sure what you mean by this... do you really think
| Zoom is just 'trying to help'? They're a corporation trying to
| make money you can't seriously think they actually give a shit
| about 'helping' or whatever.
| randcraw wrote:
| I think the author sees technosolutionism (TS) as a blind faith
| that technology will solve each problem we have... eventually. Of
| course, like capitalism, if the problem is harder or less
| profitable than another, it will receive less attention than
| lower-hanging/sexier alternatives and perhaps never be addressed
| at all, much less to a degree of competence or integration that
| provides lasting improvement to our world.
|
| That said, I think the principal problem with TS is its essential
| entanglement with novelty. We are drawn to novelty like moths to
| flame, often responding with disproportionate favor to the
| sexiness of the Next Next Thing, regardless of its prospect for
| real utility (e.g. the Segway...). The invention doesn't have to
| add significant value; it just has to capture enough mindshare
| for the inventors to use the favorable press to sell off the
| business. Then the product is absorbed into a bigger fish's
| ecosystem where filling a niche profitably, however trivial, is
| good enough.
|
| The fundamental problem with TS is that its impact is mostly
| promotional and ephemeral --- that of introducing A New and
| Better Way. While revolution is sexier, it's much less viable to
| make lasting impact than evolution. It can't be sustained in an
| ephemera-based ecosystem driven only by advancing the next
| quarter's mindshare. For TS to escape the surly bonds of Earth,
| it has to be driven by more than enthusiasm for the latest cool
| demo.
|
| In decades past, large firms with deep pockets and long term tech
| agendas (IBM, Intel, GE) provided persistent inertia to turn TS
| into lasting infrastructure. But with their demise, I see no Next
| Next generation firms to fill those shoes. Perhaps the only form
| of invention left now is TS, and I agree with the author; that's
| clearly not enough.
| scythe wrote:
| >Technosolutionism is a way of understanding the world that
| assigns priority to engineered solutions to human problems. Its
| first principle is the notion that an app, a machine, a software
| program, or an algorithm offers the best solution to any
| complicated problem.
|
| Critics of "technosolutionism" as the author calls it often end
| up committing the same mistake backwards. Why implement an
| unpopular, slow, inconsistent and/or expensive social reform when
| a perfectly good technology _does_ exist?
|
| One example is noise pollution. We continue to build buildings
| with thin walls where even the "recommended" STC 50 means that
| you can hear "loud speech" through the wall, to say nothing of
| music:
|
| http://commercial-acoustics.com/common-wall-stc-values/
|
| Then we waste inordinate amounts of time and energy fining noise
| violations, which fails to actually prevent noise, but _does_ do
| a good job of making young people hate the cops. After more than
| 10 years living in what passes for multi-unit housing in the
| United States, I still lie awake at night wishing for
| technosolutionism to put a proper wall between me and my
| neighbors.
| anchpop wrote:
| > Technosolutionists were blithely dismissive of such proven
| measures not only because their advocates were often inconsistent
| in their advice (don't wear a mask, wear a mask) but because the
| recommendations relied on the public (that mass of humanity whom
| technosolutionists, in the main, view as irrational and
| misguided) to adhere to them voluntarily.
|
| Sounds like the technosolutionists were right on the money?
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| I think what underpins this type of criticism is an irrational
| desire for computationalism as a general philosophy to be wrong
| and inapplicable, despite the dramatic empirical success it
| enjoys.
|
| > " Technosolutionism is a way of understanding the world that
| assigns priority to engineered solutions to human problems. Its
| first principle is the notion that an app, a machine, a software
| program, or an algorithm offers the best solution to any
| complicated problem."
|
| But you can't escape science. Whatever _is_ a solution, if it can
| be reduced to repeatable physical processes and computational
| substrates, is amenable to engineering and engineering has almost
| universally made such solutions more scalable, more reliable,
| safer, more affordable and so on.
|
| I think there is a dangerous Luddite narrative underpinning this
| that ultimately is not self-consistent and likely to do more harm
| than good.
|
| Also anecdotally, as an introvert, I can't overstate how much
| happier I feel working from home. I'll take all the flaws of
| videoconferencing any day, over the constant fight-vs-flight
| reflex exhaustion of open plan offices and a constant stream of
| in-person interaction when I need solitude and privacy to get
| mental clarity about my work.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > I think there is a dangerous Luddite narrative ...
|
| What was ever dangerous about the actual Luddites, as opposed
| to the story told about the Luddites by their foes?
| Miraste wrote:
| This is an unconvincing article. If we look past the paragraphs
| of emotional appeals, the actual results for "technosolutionism"
| during the pandemic are this:
|
| China created a technosolutionist fix. They implemented it widely
| with government backing. It was invasive but worked.
|
| South Korea created a technosolutionist fix, which was less
| invasive than China's. It was implemented widely with government
| backing. It also worked.
|
| Apple/Google created a technosolutionist fix. It was not
| implemented in the US and did not receive government backing. It
| did not work. The article claims this disparity is really because
| South Korea is "homogenous" and "trusting".
|
| The US instead attempted to implement "proven measures" that
| "relied on the public . . . to adhere to them." This also did not
| work, for the reason technosolutionists said it wouldn't: the
| public didn't adhere to them.
|
| What part of this is supposed to show that "technosolutionism
| isn't the fix?"
| twblalock wrote:
| The article uses Zoom as an example of a bad technical
| solution. But Zoom and similar video software is the only
| reason a lot of people still have jobs, or can see the faces of
| their family and friends. That's a lot more concrete and
| important than the "event boundaries" and other hand-wavy
| psychology theory the author complains about.
|
| Imagine if this pandemic had happened in 1990, or even 2000.
| The web would have been nonexistent (in 1990) or quite young
| (in 2000). There was not much video conferencing software
| available, and most people didn't have broadband anyway. Many
| more people would have been unable to do their jobs from home
| than is the case today, so many more would have been
| unemployed.
|
| Let's invert the article and talk about all the technological
| solutions that have improved life during the pandemic:
|
| - Video conferencing saves jobs, make remote learning possible,
| and enables people to see the faces of their friends and
| family.
|
| - Delivery services make it easier for people to quarantine at
| home and avoid risking exposure in grocery stores and
| restaurants. They also help keep many restaurants in business,
| as most restaurants do not have (and cannot afford) have their
| own staff of drivers.
|
| - Streaming services help people stay sane while cooped up at
| home.
|
| Throughout the pandemic, a lot of tech products that people
| used to criticize as useless have proven very useful.
| geofft wrote:
| Well, it seems like the distinction in the cases is not the
| amount of technosolutionism but the amount of government
| backing, no?
|
| Quoting the article on that precise point:
|
| > _Critics of the technosolutionist approach point out that
| contact tracing apps, which were quickly embraced in countries
| like China and South Korea, were effective only if public
| health services were also able to successfully test the
| majority of people at risk, something that has yet to occur in
| the United States._
|
| Technology is a necessary component of many solutions, but is
| rarely per se the solution. The old internet saying "There are
| no technical solutions to social problems" comes to mind - it
| doesn't mean that technology can't _contribute to_ the solution
| (many social problems have solutions that require statistical
| models, cookies, higher-performance internet connections,
| Spanner, whatever), it just means that the technology doesn 't
| solve the problem on its own. Wikipedia, for instance, would
| not be what it is without the wiki, but it is certainly not
| simply the wiki - it's the decades of writing that happened on
| the wiki.
|
| Many people set up their own wiki, in the wake of Wikipedia,
| hoping to see the same success. Very few of them ended up
| working.
|
| Technical-component-of-a-social-solution-ism is not
| technosolutionism. The article defines technosolutionism as
| follows: " _Technosolutionism is a way of understanding the
| world that assigns priority to engineered solutions to human
| problems. Its first principle is the notion that an app, a
| machine, a software program, or an algorithm offers the best
| solution to any complicated problem._ "
|
| All the projects from March to build 3D-printed ventilators at
| home, for instance, were technosolutionism. There's a lack of a
| physical item; we have 3D printers. Obviously we can 3D print
| our way out of the problem!
|
| I'd argue that https://www.vaccinateca.com/ , for instance, is
| _not_ technosolutionism in the definition above, despite it
| relying on a website and Airtable
| (https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1350539166296100864),
| because they're not saying "We can build a platform for
| pharmacies to enter data," they're saying "We're going to call
| up pharmacists, ourselves, and type what they say into a
| spreadsheet." Of course there's a lot of technical work that
| went into Airtable. But the difference, I think, is that they
| set out to solve a problem, and along the way they found a
| place where technology can help; they didn't set out to find a
| use for technology.
| [deleted]
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Neither China or South Korea created technological solutions.
| The solutions in both countries are social.
|
| China used some good old communist methods, mobilise the entire
| population in the fight against the virus. Virtually every
| apartment building had someone sitting in front of it taking
| temperature. Every restaurant had. When someone was sick, two
| others were checking in and ensuring that people comply with
| regulation and go shopping for them. When China had one case in
| a city they cordoned off half a million people and tested
| millions.
|
| South Korea wasn't quite as stringent with lockdowns but it
| worked the same way, compliance of the population, quick
| testing and _human tracing_. Same in Taiwan. What worked there
| was giving you a phone, locking you in your apartment, having
| the health department call on you three times per day and
| fining you 10k bucks if you didn 't listen.
|
| The tracing apps did, to put it mildly, jack shit. The
| solution, which is why a lot of Asian countries, even
| relatively poor ones like Vietnam, made it out of this, was
| adherence to law and compliance and harsh measures for those
| who fell out of line.
|
| Throwing some random Apple dongle at every problem fixes
| exactly nothing, you can install a hundred apps on your phone,
| if your entire population has lost the collective will to
| actually act in coordinated fashion you're in the dog house.
| anonu wrote:
| > China created a technosolutionist fix.
|
| China runs on an authoritarian regime. Whatever success they
| can claim against the pandemic is less about technology and
| more about the ability to enforce draconian rules.
| ralfd wrote:
| Yes, and the ultimate technosolution by the west is a vaccine.
| claudiulodro wrote:
| I agree, it's a nuanced issue. IMHO, the pandemic was heavily
| exacerbated by technosolutionism (air travel), which makes this
| sort of analysis difficult. At this stage in society, it's
| basically "is technology the solution for problems created by
| technology?" That's been a long-running debate with no clear
| answer.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| It's _always_ been like this, ever since our ancestors
| figured out how to use stones to smash things. Technology
| solves problems and reveals or creates new ones. Which are to
| be solved with more technology.
|
| It's somewhat obvious point if one looks at what the word
| means - "the application of scientific knowledge for
| practical purposes".
| cbozeman wrote:
| Vietnam created a technosolutionist fix, it was also
| implemented widely with government backing. It did also work.
|
| And now its being used by police to crack down on specific
| groups and individuals that the government doesn't particularly
| like, even after that same government assured the Vietnamese
| people that this data wouldn't be used in such a way.
|
| > The US instead attempted to implement "proven measures" that
| "relied on the public . . . to adhere to them." This also did
| not work, for the reason technosolutionists said it wouldn't:
| the public didn't adhere to them.
|
| It didn't work because America is advanced freedom. Not freedom
| in the sense of, "You're free to eat sushi or have a burger
| instead," but freedom in the sense of, "You're free to make a
| cornucopia of bad choices... but you're going to be free to
| suffer from them too."
|
| The best quote I've ever heard in regards to this: "The true
| price of freedom is having to endure what other people do with
| it."
| Miraste wrote:
| I don't agree that being forced to suffer the consequences of
| other people's poor decisions is freedom. To counterquote:
| "Your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not
| to have my nose struck begins."
|
| Attributed to many famous people over the years, this
| originally comes from John B. Finch, a 19th century chair of
| the Prohibition National Committee. While Prohibition failed
| miserably in aggregate, its ongoing legacy of (American!)
| laws against drunk driving and public drunkenness are
| perfectly good examples of how this ethos works and why it's
| important.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> I don 't agree that being forced to suffer the
| consequences of other people's poor decisions is freedom._
|
| You're not forced to suffer the consequences. You have the
| freedom to adopt countermeasures. You can drive defensively
| and stay alert when behind the wheel as a countermeasure
| against other drivers possibly being drunk. You can wear a
| mask (properly), social distance, avoid crowds, etc., as a
| countermeasure against other people possibly having an
| infectious disease. That's how it's _supposed_ to work in a
| free society.
|
| _> While Prohibition failed miserably in aggregate, its
| ongoing legacy of (American!) laws against drunk driving
| and public drunkenness are perfectly good examples of how
| this ethos works and why it 's important._
|
| The reason why the laws you refer to work reasonably well
| in America is that _they are only enforced when someone has
| already made a mistake_. We don 't have roadblocks
| everywhere with cops forcibly administering breathalyzers
| to all drivers to make sure none of them are drunk. We
| don't have cops going around cities forcibly administering
| breathalyzers to everyone walking on the streets to make
| sure none of them are drunk. We only enforce those laws
| when someone has already done something like cause an
| accident, or drive erratically enough to get a cop's
| attention, or behave in public in a way that is obviously
| due to drunkenness.
|
| And that very method of enforcement means that _you, the
| individual citizen, cannot depend on it to protect you
| individually_. In other words, those laws are _not_
| shielding you, individually, from the consequences of other
| people 's bad decisions. You _still_ have to adopt your own
| countermeasures when you drive, because you can 't assume
| that every other driver is sober. And, again, that's the
| way it's _supposed_ to work in a free society.
| jancsika wrote:
| > You're not forced to suffer the consequences.
|
| I'm having trouble reading this in any way where it isn't
| obviously false.
|
| Unless there's a secret source of hazmat suits I haven't
| heard about, other people's poor behavior in a pandemic
| creates a measurable, deadly risk to the people who
| follow the guidelines.
| cbozeman wrote:
| You can't _see_ someone catch COVID-19. You can 't _see_
| someone infected with COVID-19.
|
| You can _see_ someone drink a beer. You can _see_ someone
| acting as though they were drunk.
|
| You can't have a free society without assuming a high
| degree of risk, period. That's part of the deal. You want
| a large amount of freedom, you have to accept a large
| amount of risk. People who can't cope with that need to
| realize America is not the place for them. I will
| actively work against people who want to reduce freedoms
| in America - of all kinds. Freedom is hard, requires
| work, and sometimes sucks. That's part of the deal.
| creato wrote:
| > You're not forced to suffer the consequences. You have
| the freedom to adopt countermeasures. You can drive
| defensively and stay alert when behind the wheel as a
| countermeasure against other drivers possibly being
| drunk. You can wear a mask (properly), social distance,
| avoid crowds, etc., as a countermeasure against other
| people possibly having an infectious disease. That's how
| it's supposed to work in a free society.
|
| In this case, the consequences extend beyond merely
| contracting COVID-19. The consequences also include
| society-wide social and economic impacts that are
| amplified disproportionately by people who make "poor
| decisions".
|
| > We don't have roadblocks everywhere with cops forcibly
| administering breathalyzers to all drivers to make sure
| none of them are drunk.
|
| We absolutely do. You probably live in one of the
| minority of states in which they are not legal.
| AuthorizedCust wrote:
| > _The reason why the laws you refer to work reasonably
| well in America is that they are only enforced when
| someone has already made a mistake._
|
| That depends on the law correctly defining a line that
| separates a "mistake" from everything else. All we have
| to do is look at 26 years of the 55 mph speed limit to
| shatter that naive view.
| fjabre wrote:
| Your analogies fall short when talking about a microscopic
| virus.
|
| It's funny how many people underestimate this virus in
| terms of its ability to mutate and spread.
|
| And it's laughable that people think this can be contained
| with 'contact tracing' and 'monitoring' the movements of
| private citizens. It is a force of nature.
|
| Contact tracing simply gives the illusion of control while
| giving governments and excuse to spy.
|
| How easily free citizens give up basic fundamental rights
| in the name of Fear.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| And yet, China, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea,
| Thailand, and Vietnam have managed to stop the virus.
| Weird how that works.
| fjabre wrote:
| Ah so they have cured themselves of the virus have they?
|
| South Korea is 4 times smaller than California. And its
| population many times more homogeneous than any of the 50
| states.
|
| New Zealand is an island nation with half the population
| of New Jersey
|
| Thailand has had several recent outbreaks and hotspots.
|
| Also that you believe Chinas/Vietnam/Thailands reporting
| is making a lot of assumptions. Governments in SE Asia
| have a very strong hold on what gets reported. You
| absolutely cannot trust the numbers they are reporting.
| To do so is irresponsible at best.
|
| Weird how you compare apples to oranges and expect it to
| be a fair comparison.
|
| Fear is a great motivator for giving up individual
| freedoms. That much is clear. How easily we give up our
| fundamental rights in the name of security and fear.
| Aerroon wrote:
| I think the quote isn't referring to somebody having a
| direct impact on you, but rather that you have to put up
| with their immoral behavior (in your view). In a free
| society a religious fundamentalist has to tolerate
| atheists.
|
| Drunk driving and public drunkenness laws are mostly
| practical. They are a restriction on people's freedom
| before they've harmed other. The laws are preventative in
| nature and exist to preempt harm that reckless behavior
| could cause. They're not good for modeling the principles
| of a free society on, because you'd quickly arrive at a
| paternalistic surveillance state. The laws are a compromise
| between safety and freedom.
| derefr wrote:
| Freedom vs. authoritarianism isn't quite the thing being
| pointed at here, but there is a concept that the GP's post
| is getting at: freedom vs. paternalism.
|
| The difference between a paternalistic and non-
| paternalistic state, is basically that a paternalistic
| state tries to actively _prevent_ you -- i.e. render you
| incapable of doing -- things it doesn 't want you to do;
| while a non-paternalistic state merely _punishes_ you for
| doing things, hoping you 'll stop _yourself_ from doing
| those things by considering the potential consequences.
|
| In a non-paternalistic state, you _do_ kind of have the
| right to strike people in the nose... once. Those other
| people just have the right to seek justice for you having
| done that, and the government has a right to put you in
| jail for having done that -- whereupon you 'll have your
| right to strike people in the nose taken away, by being led
| around in manacles. But once you've served your time and
| return to the outside world, you'll again have the right to
| strike people in the nose. Once.
|
| A paternalistic state, meanwhile, looks like e.g. having
| people diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder
| involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital (despite
| never having yet actually attacked anyone) unless/until
| they agree to take drugs to "control" the disorder.
| Literally trying to ensure that such people never strike
| someone in the nose in the first place.
|
| Americans don't actually fear authoritarianism (e.g. harsh
| punishments, for many different offenses); they mostly fear
| paternalism.
| imbnwa wrote:
| The Civil Rights Act literally prevents people from
| discriminating based on race amongst other criteria. ADA
| literally prevents people from living the disabled to
| fend for themselves. Curious what segment of Americans
| fear paternalism.
| robocat wrote:
| > The difference between a paternalistic and non-
| paternalistic state, is basically that a paternalistic
| state tries to actively prevent you, while a non-
| paternalistic state merely punishes you
|
| Paternalistic: I truely hate PC shit, but that seems like
| a terribly misogynistic word, I guess someone needs to
| discipline our forebears. And my own cultural stereotypes
| are that mothers have rules, and punishment is something
| a father does (in complete opposition to that
| definition?!).
|
| > non-paternalistic
|
| Now I wonder how often we think of a man as
| maternalistic, however not being maternalistic is mostly
| pretty bad: https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-
| opposite-of/maternalis...
| cma wrote:
| Free as in the five eyes already mutually spy on each other
| and then share the data, that is pretty much as invasive as
| what Vietnam added, to get around the rules on not spying on
| their own citizens.
| [deleted]
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| The US Gov is already kidnapping citizens in unmarked vans
| and snooping on all our data so I'm not even sure we're
| really getting the freedom part.
|
| I wonder what number of COVID deaths stops being acceptable
| losses for our amazing liberty? After sandy hook I'm guessing
| there is no limit
| Solocomplex wrote:
| They are not free to violate my right to life by being
| unwilling to follow basic public health measures.
| fjabre wrote:
| Yes they are.
|
| You didn't lock people up for giving your Grandma the flu
| even though it may have killed her.
|
| That you think you can enforce or shame people into giving
| up freedom of movement (what's more fundamental then being
| able to leave your house?) is beyond reasonable or
| rational.
|
| You could extend this reasoning to all viruses that are
| deadly to some population of people, including the flu and
| the regular old cold virus.
|
| Where do you draw the line? Even government officials can't
| keep to their own policies. Look at Newsom dining out.
|
| "Do as I say. Not as I do" that's the message.
|
| You are free to shut yourself in your basement for the next
| two years but you can never hope to force other humans
| inside and shame them into doing so.
|
| It won't work. It's absolutely impractical in a democracy.
| And if you try to make it work you will do so at great
| costs.
|
| Fear. What a great motivator.
| Khaine wrote:
| Some states have abolished laws that made it a crime to
| knowingly give people AIDS because it is 'stigmatising'.
| Yet those same people harp on about people not wearing
| masks are 'murders'. The hypocrisy is staggering.
| twblalock wrote:
| Clearly they are. Maybe they shouldn't have that freedom,
| but they do.
|
| In the United States, a lot of law enforcement agencies
| have announced that they will not enforce stay-at-home
| orders, curfews, or mandatory mask wearing. Businesses can
| call the police to kick people out if they don't wear
| masks, but not because of some new mask-related law --
| businesses already had the legal right to kick people out
| if they refuse to leave. If you're seen on the street
| without a mask, the police might ask you to put one on, or
| they might say nothing at all, but they are very unlikely
| to fine you.
|
| All of those things are true in California, which is
| considered to have some of the strictest restrictions in
| the country. Most other states are less strict.
| dqpb wrote:
| Fine example of truly moronic thinking:
|
| > "distance education assumes a great deal about its recipients
| that has not proven true. Children who expertly sift through
| YouTube videos and Instagram posts, or master video games like
| Fortnite, have honed skills that have not proven transferrable to
| online learning.
|
| Nevertheless, the country's experiment in online learning--which
| is also an experiment in the desocialization of education--is one
| that some technosolutionist leaders hope to continue, despite
| early evidence of its failures."
|
| Distance and online education has been effectively used for
| decades, and is rapidly improving with the recent growth of
| Coursera, EdX, and Udacity.
|
| Public schools Zoom classroom shitshows don't in any way comprise
| "early evidence of failures of online learning". It shows only
| that ad-hoc Zoom classes set up by public schools aren't
| effective methods of online-learning.
| burnthrow wrote:
| > Technosolutionism is a way of understanding the world that
| assigns priority to engineered solutions to human problems.
|
| Also known as technocracy, but someone has to feed The Saurus I
| guess.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Technocracy is rule by technical experts, usually taking the
| form of a bureaucracy composed primarily of educated and
| experienced professionals.
|
| Technosolutionism is the belief that "there should be an app
| for that"
| adamlangsner wrote:
| I think I'm the only one here who liked this article.
|
| While there are some good, albeit somewhat pedantic, points
| raised in the comments. I think we may be missing the forest for
| the trees.
|
| There is a sort of sophomoric myopia that exists in silicon
| valley and maybe it's not technology per se that is the problem,
| but in fact the incentives created around the tech community. I
| think the problem is more accurately described as the combination
| of access to large amounts of capital and low cost mass
| communication/experimentation technologies (i.e. the internet).
| This has a created a culture that thinks they can solve any
| problem with one of the two.
|
| But I think what's even worse is that the solutionists
| subconsciously have an unspoken prerequisite to "solving" a
| problem, which is "It needs to be wildly profitable". And it's
| that incentive that lead to the myopia and pervert the
| "solutions" they create.
|
| Instacart and Uber are great examples. Did they actually solve a
| problem? For whom did they solve it for? For whom did they not
| solve it for? Did they make certain things worse than they were
| before? You probably have your own answers to those questions.
| [deleted]
| mrRandomGuy wrote:
| Think a lot of posters are taking the criticism of
| `Technosolutionism` to literally mean _technology_; not various
| apps/services which are hailed to solve problem X without any
| actual evidence/merit of that claim.
|
| I really don't think they bundle vaccines into that department...
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Because that's how its expressed. Like other criticism in this
| now fashionable genre, it accuses _technology_ of being the
| problem. Of course this is a complete red herring, but it
| bites, because commenting on the _actual_ source of the problem
| will make you sound like you 're just rehashing Marxist tropes,
| which everyone has heard already and thus they don't drive
| engagement.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-18 23:01 UTC)