There are so many things I can write about this, but I’ll keep it short:
Technological solutions to societal problems is one of the shortest paths to hell.
So, no, thanks.
There are so many things I can write about this, but I’ll keep it short:
Technological solutions to societal problems is one of the shortest paths to hell.
So, no, thanks.
> Technological solutions to societal problems is one of the shortest paths to hell.
This is an unjustified blanket opinion. Sometimes, societal problems can be solved by technological progress. I think you simply lack imagination if you cannot think of any societal problem that would be solved by better technology.
Thanks for your comment. Can you provide me some examples so we can discuss on it further?
For example: the current societal problem of not doing enough against climate change would disappear if we developed cheap fusion power and/or very cheap grid-scale batteries that would remove the intermittency issue from renewables. Such power sources would quickly replace fossil fuels simply due to better economics, no need to change society to care about climate change anymore.
May I interest you in Jevon's paradox: if a thing becomes cheaper or more efficient, usage tends to go up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
How will increased energy use from *carbon-neutral sources* cause climate change?
Sure, so then what does society do with all of the cheap energy? Human nature is still there. Among other things, leads directly to discarding even more plastic junk wherever it’s convenient and no one complains too much.
Recently Animats replied to one of my comments and brought "Megawatt Racks" to my attention.
I work at a datacenter. We provide compute resources to researchers, and while our datacenter is not small or low energy, one of our systems have Green500 certification and we try to do things as efficient as possible.
When I look at our racks, some of them are DLC BTW, and imagine each of them can pack a MW system now, I shudder. Not because of us, but what AI datacenters gonna do with that energy density and how much heat will these systems put out.
Like money? Or agriculture?
Sincerely though, can you explain?
"We need most of our population working full time to keep ourselves fed because running a farm is really hard" is a technical problem, not a societal one. You can solve it with fertilizer and the cotton gin or whatever.
"There's a bunch of us now and barter isn't cutting it anymore" is a technical problem, not a societal one. You can solve it with coinage and banks or whatever.
"The internet used to be fun and useful but now it sucks" is a societal problem, not a technical one. You can't solve it with a federated twitter clone or yet another secure messaging protocol or whatever.
What? Why? Why would those first two be "technical problems" that we can "solve" with innovation, but that last example isn't? What makes something a technical problem vs. a societal problem?
Generally, if you're targeting behavior of the people or the masses, you're targeting a societal problem.
People bullying other people is not a technical problem. People driving dangerously is not a technical problem. People shoplifting is not a technical problem. All of them have different reasons deep down, and preventing the symptom doesn't solve the problem.
When you effectively prevent bullying, the bully might damage something else or may do self-harm to soothe their demons. Same for people driving dangerously or have to shoplift to survive.
When you cure the root problem, which is generally harder BTW, the problem you're technically trying to prevent disappears, too.
Hope this helps.
Taxing the bots for UBI would help more people than it would harm.
> People driving dangerously is not a technical problem.
Complete bullshit. This problem can be completely solved by a technical, not societal solution: actually working self-driving cars. Once they are available, all your imperfect societal solutions to the problem are not needed anymore.
Yeah, that future is certainly here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-FXvRHHjXSU
I don't believe many understands the complexity of a self-driving car. It's not like programming a couple of agents with simulated sensors on a computer.
That future is not here yet, but my point still stands: once they are sufficiently developed (it's only a matter of time, perhaps 5 years, perhaps 20 years), your societal problem suddenly has a technological solution. QED.
"Sufficiently developed" seems like a cheap proof. There are still many non-technological problems above and below it.
For example, how do you ensure everyone on the road has a self-driving car? We've sufficiently developed electric cars, but they're not nearly the majority.
> We've sufficiently developed electric cars, but they're not nearly the majority.
Just to further support your point, sufficiently developed electric cars' batteries still doesn't have the energy density of fossil fuels, so they can't replace any and every use case.
For example, can we carry or generate the energy these cars requires to move unimpeded like ICE vehicles yet? Or, did we improve the procedures and materials so these cars can be extinguished faster, more reliably and securely then their previous generation counterparts? Or did battery recycling methods became cheap and efficient enough yet, so we can reuse these batteries and at least not increase mining on our planet? Etc. Etc.
I'm not against renewables or electric cars, but even in their current form, we need to solve many problems to make them more practical and even less impactful when compared to their ICE counterparts.
Yes like money and agriculture. We produce enough food for everyone and then throw it away because some dont have money for it. Very good example!
[flagged]
Didn't I? I have given a direction as a reply. Telling that the road you're planning to go down is not the right one. I have offered you a pruning pattern for your decision tree in your mind, urging you to think on what you have proposed and look at it with a critical eye.
I have offered you to look for other examples, or find a way which has been traveled less or at least ponder on "why?" of this comment. Somebody else did down below, asked for clarification. Somebody beat me to it with a much better example then I can think at that very moment, adding more context and information into my comment.
I don't know you, your circumstances or preferences, hence dictating the way is neither the wise thing to do, nor it's my responsibility to begin with, since you didn't ask me about my opinions about the right way in the first place.
There's help everywhere who dare to look, or explore the the thing they have found and ponder on it. You have a mighty thing in your skull. A brain, a mind. Use it and explore its potential. It might not be easy in the beginning, but it'll be rewarding at the end.
At least, I can promise that to you.