Great piece. Topical as well with the release of the "Abundance" book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, which harps on longstanding themes of Human Progress. I cover optimism and problem solving across New England and am seeing more and more of this perspective adopted-- keep it up!
Science fiction writers are usually the first people to see the possibility for a new technology.
Those writers need villains to drive the action and suspense in their stories. So they make the new technology a villain. Robots. Beings from outer space. Time travelers. Human clones. People resuscitated by organs was Frankenstein. AI was Hal and Skynet. No wonder everyone is afraid of them.
I strongly agree that understanding the psychological roots behind anti-technology attitudes is important.
However, I don’t find evolutionary psychology to be at all credible. It is evident from direct introspection that emotions are the product of one’s ideas. People react to technology because of ideas they have about it.
I’ve heard you speak very positively of Alex Epstein, yet this seems to be at odds with your suspicion of moral frameworks. After all, his entire approach is based on using an alternative moral framework. And it is precisely these moral ideas that are driving much of the anti-tech animus, as he shows.
Great piece. Topical as well with the release of the "Abundance" book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, which harps on longstanding themes of Human Progress. I cover optimism and problem solving across New England and am seeing more and more of this perspective adopted-- keep it up!
Science fiction writers are usually the first people to see the possibility for a new technology.
Those writers need villains to drive the action and suspense in their stories. So they make the new technology a villain. Robots. Beings from outer space. Time travelers. Human clones. People resuscitated by organs was Frankenstein. AI was Hal and Skynet. No wonder everyone is afraid of them.
Thank you for explaining the power of human technological innovation to solve climate issues and our troublesome psycholgical biases against them!
I would suggest, however, that the bias towards sociality is an essential aspect of the human condition, not a "bug".
An ideal ecosystem honors the human need for connection to people and planet.
Personal involvement in planetary stewardship, however insignificant, is a human spiritual virtue.
Obviously, ritualized deconsumption at the expense of technological innovation would be a terrible tragedy.
Perhaps a balance can be found - eg citizens ("charitably") investing in innovation ...
I strongly agree that understanding the psychological roots behind anti-technology attitudes is important.
However, I don’t find evolutionary psychology to be at all credible. It is evident from direct introspection that emotions are the product of one’s ideas. People react to technology because of ideas they have about it.
I’ve heard you speak very positively of Alex Epstein, yet this seems to be at odds with your suspicion of moral frameworks. After all, his entire approach is based on using an alternative moral framework. And it is precisely these moral ideas that are driving much of the anti-tech animus, as he shows.
mark, can you send me a more detailed email regarding the perceived oddity or contradiction?
Sure, will do