Is technology the cure for X?

[BvBPL]

Not only did Smallpox eradication take institutions, it took effective international institutions to pull off. That in and of itself is pretty awesome and that international cooperation was really only possible with modern technologies that have nothing to do with vaccines like fax machines, telephone networks, printers, and so on.

...which in turn required social institutions that have nothing inherent to do with technology like monopolies, patent laws, and regulation to make those technologies effective.

Technology and social institutions go hand in hand in solving problems like smallpox.

Let's assume that radio, for example, has solved a social problem. I don't think that's an unfair fact to assume.

Radio networks are only functional because of regulation that dictates how who can transmit on what frequency at what amperage and at what location. If those regulations didn't exist then it would be the Wild West on your wireless as everyone could broadcast over each other. If that were the case then every channel would likely be a static jumble as competing stations attempted to broadcast over the same frequency.

Radio is great, but without regulation is would be nonsense.

Edit: I realized on my drive home that a reductionist argument in terms of a chicken or the egg examination might not have been the most helpful. Suffice it to say that many of the victories of technology would not be possible without existent social institutions and the same can be said the other way around.

An irony of the disruptionist philosophy exists in social technology. We have technological innovations like Wikipedia that only exist because social networks have adopted them.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree with what you posted but I have to say:

Radio is great, but without regulation is would be nonsense.

Somewhere on the interwebs a libertarian just had a heart attack.

 

[Algeroth]

How many social programs themselves work out to be terribly successful in the long run?

You mean social programs like compulsory schooling and universal literacy that enabled not only space exploration but also to disscuss their merits over the internet?

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm firmly of the opinion that technology is necessary to uplifting and improving the human condition.

So, the main issue is that you can have targeted technological spending. Want a treatment for Alzheimer's, fund Alzheimer's research. Want cheaper solar panels, fund solar research. The idea that you can fund a Mars project and then 'hope' the Alzheimer's and solar shakes out is ... well ... not fully true or evident.

What lifts people truly out of poverty? Jobs. And jobs are only really created through innovation, someone invents a new product or service and then hires people to deliver it. When you've got true poverty, then you don't even need to invent jobs, since there are products out there that already have markets. We'll buy grains, fruits, meat, coffee, etc. You can use the money to hire (local) teachers, plumbers, contractors, etc.
These initial careers require a basic capital investment, and that requires basic social spending.

So, where does this innovation spending and social spending come from? In established companies, "R&D" spending is considered to be a deficit in the stock price. They'll invest in innovation, but not very efficiently. Their sole goal is to sell you their product, and are merely trying to queak it for better market share. Spending that triggers a cognitive bias on your part is as good as true innovation.

Ironically, as science and things like robotics appear and advance, there's less jobs for people (and we're not just talking about menial jobs like assembly line or etc. There's replacements for fighter pilots, firemen, garbagemen and others).

Mark my words, once post-scarcity is achieved, humans, as we know them, will disappear from the face of the Earth. That's what killed all the races in the space games with random ancient ruins.

 

[civver_764]

I think this is an example of how money ruins things. There's no reason humanity can't work on getting to Mars and helping the poor. Money is an illusory boundary.

 

[Lillefix]

We can send all the poor people to Mars.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You mean social programs like compulsory schooling and universal literacy that enabled not only space exploration but also to disscuss their merits over the internet?

Silly retort:

Those schools that are only possible due to technologies like buildings, books, etc.

 

[Cutlass]

It did occur to me that there is a boogeyman that's NOT imaginary and IS worth racing against: the certainty that the earth will be struck by an orbit-crossing object that's strong enough to be a civilization eraser.

It's not an "if" sort of event, it's a "when".

Maybe not for 1000 years, 100,000, nor 10,000,000. But it will happen. And if we've never learned how to live outside the nest, we'll be as good as stillborn.

The problem with things like this is that their very rarity makes it difficult to make the possibility real in people's minds. Too many people just cannot foresee something like that.

 

[Commodore]

Ironically, as science and things like robotics appear and advance, there's less jobs for people (and we're not just talking about menial jobs like assembly line or etc. There's replacements for fighter pilots, firemen, garbagemen and others).

Mark my words, once post-scarcity is achieved, humans, as we know them, will disappear from the face of the Earth. That's what killed all the races in the space games with random ancient ruins.

Or technology will advance to the point where humans won't be compelled to work and will be free to follow whatever pursuit they desire. Or it will advance to the point where we upload our consciousness into a digital form. Again that would eliminate the need for the traditional idea of "work" and drastically reduce our need for resources to sustain ourselves.

 

[Narz]

It did occur to me that there is a boogeyman that's NOT imaginary and IS worth racing against: the certainty that the earth will be struck by an orbit-crossing object that's strong enough to be a civilization eraser.

It's not an "if" sort of event, it's a "when".

Maybe not for 1000 years, 100,000, nor 10,000,000. But it will happen. And if we've never learned how to live outside the nest, we'll be as good as stillborn.

We are a far greater threat to ourselves than any external force. If we can make it thru the next 300 years without global collapse I suspect we'll be able to solve this problem. And perhaps even start the beginnings of colonizing space.... maybe.

However, focusing on this now is misguided. Our #1 priority should be to make sure we can maintain human civilization on Earth. If we can't become sustainable on our own Cinderella planet, the place we've evolved over billions of years to survive in, there is certainly no hope anywhere else.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Or technology will advance to the point where humans won't be compelled to work and will be free to follow whatever pursuit they desire.

That embodies an extremely optimistic assumption about how the owners of advanced AI and robotic systems will treat the huddled unemployed masses.

We are a far greater threat to ourselves than any external force.

This. The asteroid threat is almost past, given technology we already have or will inevitably develop very soon (not that we shouldn't finish the job, by all means). Whereas, if we build the wrong kind of AI, it could mess us up real good, no matter how many planets we (or whatever "we" become) occupy.

 

[El_Machinae]

However, I also feel that 'general' tech programs are warranted and that to a large extent, the space program fills this need. I do not see the two things at odds with one another either.

They're at odds with each other with regards to competing for funds. If there's gonna be a pie-in-the-sky technology push, and if the bleed off technologies are the benefit, then it might not really matter what you push for (in the 'longshot' category). It just has to be nearly impossible.

BUT, that's only with regards to the bleed-off technologies. The 'sure thing' technologies will happen, so it's a question of what those technologies are.

There's also a very serious questions whether these NASA technologies were 'low hanging fruit' in a social sense. Were they the invention of fairly 'simple' physics that would have popped up with other types of technological pushes?

That said, I'm pretty on your side. I don't know whether it's better to create a society than creates billionaires, and then let them push for these things, or whether these things deserve tax dollar investment. In the 1960s, only the national superpowers could afford such things. Is that still true.

Are you suggesting that's the only place innovation spending and social spending come from - from companies?

No, it's not the only source. It's the major source, but it's not the only source. And they don't even do it very efficiently, since they're merely shooting for first order effects. They're only trying to create stuff that the customers want, which doesn't allow very efficient thinking.

An important thing to remember: it was the Space Program that put up the GPS satellites, but it was Sony that created the phone that lets me really benefit. What seems to work really well is the idea that 'the people' create infrastructure that 'entrepreneurs' then use. Create highways, and the trucking companies will come, I guess.

But, to go back to investment: the private corporations can really underinvest. We see this in neuroscience all the time. There's been a massive dropoff in neuropharmacological research, because "it's too hard and doesn't really pay". I mean, it's true, it's hard and it doesn't pay. It strikes me that 'giving up' ain't the correct social answer even if it's the right corporate answer. We need, very much, all of these technological breakthroughs in neuroscience, because (well) people will die horribly if we don't cure these diseases.

But the space program is cool, it produces astronaut-heros that a lot kids do idolize and emulate even if they wind up becoming doctors instead of astronauts.

There is that, and I don't think we can ever get back that flash. Like it or not, people got bored of the Moon landings, and we've gotten somewhat blase regarding a lot of scientific advances. Most parents cannot answer the cliche childhood question "why is the sky blue?", so learning more about more exciting things about our solar system doesn't trigger their fancy either.

That said, I'm broadly on board. I'd like to see us become a space-faring species. I also think that "it's basically inevitable" at this point. Does it matter terrifically if we launch our first inter-stellar probe in 2050 or 2150? It matters if it never happens, but I don't think that's likely.

Pending economic or ecological collapse of course.

Ironically, as science and things like robotics appear and advance, there's less jobs for people (and we're not just talking about menial jobs like assembly line or etc. There's replacements for fighter pilots, firemen, garbagemen and others).

I call this 'automation induced unemployment', and honestly I think it's A Real Concern. People seem to think that we'll just see the regular ol' Creative Destruction ("there are no buggy whip manufacturers any longer"), but I think that the velocity of job loss can accelerate well too fast for people to find alternative employment.

If the cab driver loses his job, if it's cheaper to make a robot to do his 'next' job than to train him, then he cannot get that job either.

I see no solution other than intentional redistribution schemes.

I think this is an example of how money ruins things. There's no reason humanity can't work on getting to Mars and helping the poor. Money is an illusory boundary.

Money is, labour isn't. If I'm using my labour to 'hire' people to bring me cigarettes and beer and to make me movies, then the poor people cannot 'hire' those people to help them.

 

[Ayatollah So]

If the cab driver loses his job, if it's cheaper to make a robot to do his 'next' job than to train him, then he cannot get that job either.

That's a tremendously important point which is often overlooked. Another way to look at it: If robots and AI increase the "labor" supply enormously, there's a strong possibility that wages will drop below life-sustaining levels.

 

[Lillefix]

If everything is more efficient things will be cheaper. Then we can slash working hours and then jobs for everyone. There's no such thing as too efficient.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's not really the way it works.
When manufactured products gets cheaper, then the value of any input goes up because the demand for that input goes up. This is basically why oil prices have gone up so much, because demand has gone up.


With the price of inputs being driven up, the real prices of those inputs will also go up, and then people will compete for the inputs. Those who derive the most profits from those inputs will be able to outbid people who derive less profits, and the people will get functionally poorer unless they can compete, which they won't be able to.

Think about property in major cities, poor people cannot barely afford to live there. And this is because the wealthier are bidding amongst each other for the right to use the property. The uneducated have no chance.

 

[uppi]

If everything is more efficient things will be cheaper. Then we can slash working hours and then jobs for everyone. There's no such thing as too efficient.

Exactly. Technology has always been about increasing productivity - getting more (in quantity and quality) for less invested labor. We can do the things we do, only because agricultural productivity has increased to the point, where only a small proportion of the available labor is required to feed us all. Otherwise we would not all be able to discuss this deep into the night, because we would all have to get up early in the morning to milk the cow.

On average, humanity can only win if technology decreases the amount of labor required. The problem is "just" a distribution problem. And that problem is not new, it is just that with increasing level of technology our current distribution method - jobs and wages - is showing more problems.

So I don't think technology is the cure for X, because X is in almost all cases not a technology problem, but a society problem. Technology can make the solution easier by decreasing the required costs, but it will never drive the costs to exactly zero, so there is always the distribution problem.

Edit:

Those who derive the most profits from those inputs will be able to outbid people who derive less profits, and the people will get functionally poorer unless they can compete, which they won't be able to.

Maybe we should decrease the competition aspect in our distribution model.