Techno-optimism is a dangerous philosophy whose adherents espouse the blind faith that market capitalism and technology will solve the world’s problems. In reality, this kind of optimism simply justifies elite power and promotes indifference to human suffering.
Andreessen’s manifesto is silly, unrestrained capitalism is a terrible idea, and billionaires are out of touch douchebags.
AND
Technology has created a higher standard of living than at any time in human history.
These two things can coexist, and you can also discuss the real abuse that went along with that increase in technology, the exploitation of weaker regions by the powerful for resources, and so on.
Embrace complexity.
Yes, and we can ask ourselves what technology we can make that makes things (even) better.
I don’t agree that now we have the highest standard of living. For me standard of living is how nice an environment a family can have. So how large and nice a home, quality of food, and time to interact together especially for the parents to be active participants in rearing their child.
For most of human history, people have lived without sewage, power, running water, or information about the world around them. A vast number of people now have all four. It could be better, obviously, but in raw terms, they do have a higher standard of living. I’ve lived under those conditions (no power, running water etc), and while they have a certain simplicity, I much prefer not.
okay yeah. if we take a long enough time period for comparison and chunk it up in pretty large sections. then yes currently. Like the last century or so. Has been the best times. If we are talking decade chunks then we have fell a bit.
I’m not an expert, so I’ll give you that one.
I don’t think many ppl dispute this. Techno-optimism isn’t about just having technology, though. It’s about capitalists creating technology and ignoring all and any negative outcome that could arise from it. The average standard of living doesn’t matter to someone who can’t attain it and techno-optimism ignores how technology hurts those ppl most of all.
The core assumption of techno-optimism seems to be that technology has led to a vast improvement in living standards, so we should do that more. This article is a hit piece which spends a fair amount of time trying to characterize techno-optimists as frantic, manic, wild-eyed, pseudo-religious nuts, but the core assumption of techno-optimism is not unreasonable.
I disagree with the tone of the article, while agreeing with many of the arguments.
“… as quickly as possible, while ignoring any harms caused by the technology or claiming they’ll be fixed later, and only as long as they’re in control of it” Again, there aren’t many ppl arguing that technology itself is bad. Techno-optimism isn’t just about “tech=good”; it’s philosophy is that our current technology industry is good for society and shouldn’t be examined (regulated) because its leaders know better than govt or simple citizens.