Gregory's ServerIf the problem is cultural, the solution will not be technological.
|
66 comments
@ian technologies can create the seed for more culture around itself which can supersede other culture  I dunno, the replicator technology depicted on Star Trek would nicely solve a rather serious cultural problem. That's not the problem. The problem is that “AI” and cryptocurrency are not capable of or intended to solve any problem. They're cash grabs, nothing more. A shiny novelty to dazzle you while the crook rifles through your pockets.  @argv_minus_one @ian I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. The replicator technology can presumably replicate itself (or at least its own components). It would be exceedingly difficult—probably impossible—to *prevent* it from becoming widely available to all. Licenses and patents and copyright have not sufficed to prevent software piracy or phone/console jailbreaking, and you expect them to suffice to prevent the jailbreaking of a high-tech horn of plenty? No way.  @argv_minus_one @econads @ian we don't copy like we did 20 years ago. It has effects. Because we're not being forced to. We can actually reliably buy/rent software/movies now, without having to drive anywhere and hope the store still carries what we're looking for. And for software/movies that aren't for sale any longer, we still do copy them. “Abandonware”, it's called. In your scenario, where the only thing standing between us and post-scarcity paradise is some capitalist's crooked artificial-scarcity scheme, we would be very much forced to. @argv_minus_one @econads @ian I just say there are tools and possibilities. I would fight tooth and nail against them, but I think there are people who wouldn't give up the current situation without a fight.  Which cultural problem would the replicator solve? It's not hunger. Humans, collectively, have so much food that we throw away lots of it. The reason that some of us starve is that a decision has been taken by others to make it happen. A replicator wouldn't change that. It's not housing. Same goes for housing.  @argv_minus_one @ian We don't need replicators to solve scarcity. Scarcity is already artificial. @ian No idea if you are pointing this to a specific issue or space but here is what I consider a cultural issue that exists especially in my state of #Wisconsin… #drinkingCulture @Npars01 @ian I'd argue that there had to be a certain amount of cultural change to drive those inventions and their manufacture and adoption, though. After all, even the printing press was controversial in its time. Had there not been an existing push toward literacy for commoners, for instance, it wouldn't have happened. Necessity is theoretically the mother of invention, but the people in charge still have to decide whether the need actually exists.    @Npars01 @ian I think you're putting the teleological horse behind the cart there. Inventions don't come out of a vacuum. They come out of need ... and needs are cultural. I'm old enough that my grandmother lived through the home appliance revolution. People didn't invent home appliances because they wanted to change society. Home appliances were invented (and their mass production further invented) because there was a *demand* for something that gave women leisure/professional time. @Npars01 @ian You're ... kinda proving my point here? Nothing was done for centuries because the culture didn't value the freeing of women from the daily grind. The ability to technologically make life easier for women predates the actual making life easier by easily a century. It took women hitting the work force in WWII and then not wanting to go back to the idiotic daily grind to finally effect the sea change needed for the technology (which was already possible!) to be mass produced.  Check the dates. Rural electrification happened in 1936. WW2 started December 7, 1941 for the USA. A government program created the prerequisites to meet a need. Government support often greases the wheels of progress. @Npars01 @ian When did mass production of vacuum cleaners automated washing machines and other such labour-saving devices start? AFAIK the fully automated washing machine—the kind that didn't have wringers (like my mother's) and other things that required you to stand there and babysit the washing—was sometime in the late '40s or early '50s even. That was one of the greatest free time makers. 🧵 (1/2)  @Npars01 @zdl @ian *whispering* Without rural electrification, they can't use the manufacturing base established by the war to make appliances. The demand was by factories that had to pivot to peacetime products. Women couldn't get a credit card without a husband co-signing when I was growing up, so it really wasn't driven by financial liberation. This is how we ended up with gadgets like microwave ovens made of parts developed for the military. It was an eager industry. Not real empowerment. @YakyuNightOwl @Npars01 @ian So you're saying the technological accomplishment of rural electrification was driven by ... *gasp* ... SOCIAL NEEDS!? Say it ain't so! 😆 @zdl @Npars01 @ian It was driven by a whole lot of factors. Not the least of which was making sure people could do basic things like pump out floodwaters, or pump water to a home, or run a dairy farm with milking machines, or listen to the radio. It allowed manufacturing to take advantage of low pay in rural places. Textiles in the southern US were assisted a lot by rural electrification. Again, it was driven more by potential industry gains than any sort of social revolution. Depression Era. @YakyuNightOwl @Npars01 @ian The need to pump out flood waters is a technological need solved socially, or a social need solved technologically? I know in this world where people make stupid shit like Bitcoin leads one to believe that technology is made in search of a problem to solve with it, but really, technology is made in response to social needs. Only the computer world is filled with people foolish enough to think otherwise. I'm saying that what triggers technological innovation isn't cut-&-dried. Need is only part of it The impact of technological innovation is often serendipitous & has unexpected side effects on the social Rural electrification was a jobs program, not a "let's goose the home appliances industry & help women" program. Its benefits to women was not the primary consideration at the time Nevertheless, it was a technological solution to a social issue, almost by accident  @Npars01 @zdl @YakyuNightOwl@mastodon.world @ian I agree with Nicole. Culture and technology feed each other. https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-technology-affects-global-local-cultures.html :mastodon:  @ian Excellent essay question prompt! Not certain the claim is true, although it's understandable as a way of pressing people to address underlying cultural issues. But, in any case, technology *is* an expression of culture, so it's complicated  @Jonathanglick @ian if technology is subordinate to and dependent on culture as you suggest, then that would strongly support the assertion that technology can't fix cultural problems. it would make it less complicated, not more.  @ian It's also the case that if the problem is cultural the cause isn't technology. @ian Counterpoint: every cultural problem is only partly about culture because culture is partly a response to the material context The cultural part is the feedback loops and the self-perpetuating behaviors, which are by nature difficult if not impossible to change Changing the material context (which includes technology) is easier by far than changing culture  @magitweeter @ian that's also true. We just exist in a cultural context that has trouble recognizing the existence of culture. There have been many attempts in history to prove this wrong. None have lasted forever, so to that point you are correct. If the problem is technological, can the solution be cultural? @ian Or, as I saw many years ago (probably on Usenet): "Don't look for Star Trek solutions to Babylon 5 problems".  We have a cultural problem around retrofitting our homes in the UK. Only 0.19% of homes use heat pumps…the vast majority still use gas or oil fired boilers and I believe this is due to our rabid rightwing media stuffed full of humanities graduates who don’t understand the science of heat pumps. For comparison, in Estonia 34% of homes use hear pumps. We bash China about carbon emissions, but the statistic there is 33%…even gas guzzling oil drilling US it’s 14%.  @ian the thing is... how likely is it that the problem will be "diagnosed" as cultural? how likely is it that some of the symptoms of the problems will be "addressed" by an unsuitable technical solution?     @ian "You can't solve people problems with technology" is one of my go-to phrases for sure :) guns, shells, mortars, cannons, rockets, helicopters equipped with all that, drones equipped with all that... yeah, the solution will be technological.  It depends on who you ask, whom the problem hurts the most, and whether an *effective* non-technical "solution" has any chance of being found and *implemented*. E.g., multiple harassment problems here have been solved for me by using the mute and block features of Mastodon. Requiring me to consider this "not a solution" until the Fediverse, society or whoever has *effectively* dealt with it would have persisted the problem indefinitely, for me. |
@ian
And any situation that has people involved will have a cultural aspect to the problem space.