I really enjoyed this article! I believe we should produce mass amounts of cheap 3D printed housing that anyone can afford with a part time minimum wage job, and then fill in the labor gaps with general purpose artificial intelligence and robotics. Then people can chill out and ignore the more dystopian aspects of society and instead enjoy this wonderful resource of infinite education and entertainment we've created. I think the answer lies in making a good enough standard of living the default for everyone and then there will be less negativity in the world.
Having seen people who seriously campaigned against installing wifi in a community library because they feared it was going to give them cancer, I think the same people you're trying to help will reject such an automated infrastructure out of fear of technology they don't understand. Although I'll eat those words when I see mass-market self-driving cars (I think people will campaign against those too because there's nobody to blame/sue when a self-driven car accidentally kills a bunch of people).
Engineering a better future is one thing. Selling it to the public is a whole different ball game. Which is sort of the other side of this article. People have the technology for better living (like strong end-to-end encryption) and they're scared of it.
The problem I see with these kinds of housing developments is that you're taking stressed out people with problems and sticking them in small boxes very close together. That's going to compound social stress and amplify bad influences. Something like 3D printed housing seems better to me because you could give each person an entire house to themselves and give them enough of their own territory to where they would feel secure and comfortable.
Written just like a person absorbing the mere surface / tabloid portions of tech. Juicero, peter theil, etc etc. Little to no mention of the revolutionary technological progress in life saving medicine, green / lower pollution energy sources, a stronger push towards ecological responsibility, safer and more plentiful food sources. Just another low effort opinion piece from a shit tier journalist looking to rake muck instead of report on news, controversies, achievements and failures.
> Little to no mention of the revolutionary technological progress in life saving medicine
They do mention this, but then note how the US government is trying to restrict healthcare despite this.
I didn't take away that this article was just complaining about tech. Instead I felt like their point was that culturally we are regressing, unable to use this incredible technology effectively. Hunger is still a problem, and our energy/waste is nowhere near green.
Is it really ? I have multiplied my income by 10 in the last two years and it hasn't made a huge difference in my lifestyle. I can afford nicer versions of everything, but the improvement is marginal. Like going from pressing my own fruit to pushing a button on a Juicero.
18 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 53.9 ms ] threadNobody knows how to organize a society to effectively use the technology we have.
Engineering a better future is one thing. Selling it to the public is a whole different ball game. Which is sort of the other side of this article. People have the technology for better living (like strong end-to-end encryption) and they're scared of it.
US version: [1] USSR version: [2] French version: [3]
"You can't stack poor people who drink."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_Homes
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15elections.t.htm...
They do mention this, but then note how the US government is trying to restrict healthcare despite this.
I didn't take away that this article was just complaining about tech. Instead I felt like their point was that culturally we are regressing, unable to use this incredible technology effectively. Hunger is still a problem, and our energy/waste is nowhere near green.
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ourwor...