6 ms·

explain

inimino 10y ago
The other commenter's point is that decisions are increasingly being made by a techno-scientific elite which is ethically ignorant and disconnected from the concerns of the majority. Your reply perfectly demonstrated that very elitism and blindness that was being criticized: we are more developed and we know better, so we don't need the input of the impoverished majority of humanity while we are making decisions about humanity's future. You regard what you know (the internet and supercomputers and genetics) as the relevant knowledge, while assuming that the rest of the world has no relevant wisdom to offer and deserves no input.
- devopsproject 10y ago
  > You regard what you know (the internet and supercomputers and genetics) as the relevant knowledge, while assuming that the rest of the world has no relevant wisdom to offer and deserves no input. You are putting words in my mouth. We know people are staving and need access to food, clean water, and sanitation. If the supercomputer could be used to feed a million people today, we would be doing it. It would be stupid not to. Just because some are taking the long view doesnt me we are out of touch elite.
  - inimino 10y ago
    On the contrary, I'm explaining how the words you wrote are perceived. You mark yourself as out of touch as soon as you said the feedback of the world would be mismatched and out of date. The translation is "we have solutions, but you lack the education and foresight to understand them, so we don't need your input." This is colonialism revived as techno-utopianism. Of course you'll say you didn't mean it that way, but that isn't the point. The rest of the world sees that technology has unintended side effects and that the benefits tend to be swallowed whole by Moloch, and they suspect your "long view" is just another delusion. > If the supercomputer could be used to feed a million people today, we would be doing it. Unless it could generate better ROI by optimizing some Facebook ads or some trading algorithms, and then we would probably be doing that.
    - devopsproject 10y ago
      The translation is: my computer cannot grow your food today. It is not that i\we don't care, is that there is a mismatch in tools to solve the current problems. My longview is pretty simple: We can do both. Just because some of us are working for a longer term goal doesn't give you any moral authority to demonize us. It is foolish and arrogant.
      - marknutter 10y ago
        Translation: the ends justify the means.
        devopsproject 10y ago
        translation: People who work to future problems do not inhibit others from working on today's problems and those people are not blind or out of touch. Go browbeat someone else.
      - inimino 10y ago
        Just because you are working for a long term (technological, scientistic) goal doesn't mean you are above the many different perspectives of the rest of the world. Some of those perspectives may be even longer-term than yours, and may be skeptical of promised future technological solutions to problems exacerbated by the technology we already have. What marknutter is highlighting is the need for a broader perspective. Many of these problems have been with us since the beginning of human history, and the only tools we need have always been within reach: human intelligence and effort. What is lacking is the moral and political will to solve them. It's not the tools we lack, it's responsibility in using the tools we already have.
        devopsproject 10y ago
        > Just because you are working for a long term (technological, scientistic) goal doesn't mean you are above the many different perspectives of the rest of the world. I've never implied this. You are making severe assumptions and putting words into my mouth

explain

The other commenter's point is that decisions are increasingly being made by a techno-scientific elite which is ethically ignorant and disconnected from the concerns of the majority. Your reply perfectly demonstrated that very elitism and blindness that was being criticized: we are more developed and we know better, so we don't need the input of the impoverished majority of humanity while we are making decisions about humanity's future. You regard what you know (the internet and supercomputers and genetics) as the relevant knowledge, while assuming that the rest of the world has no relevant wisdom to offer and deserves no input.

devopsproject 10y ago
> You regard what you know (the internet and supercomputers and genetics) as the relevant knowledge, while assuming that the rest of the world has no relevant wisdom to offer and deserves no input. You are putting words in my mouth. We know people are staving and need access to food, clean water, and sanitation. If the supercomputer could be used to feed a million people today, we would be doing it. It would be stupid not to. Just because some are taking the long view doesnt me we are out of touch elite.
- inimino 10y ago
  On the contrary, I'm explaining how the words you wrote are perceived. You mark yourself as out of touch as soon as you said the feedback of the world would be mismatched and out of date. The translation is "we have solutions, but you lack the education and foresight to understand them, so we don't need your input." This is colonialism revived as techno-utopianism. Of course you'll say you didn't mean it that way, but that isn't the point. The rest of the world sees that technology has unintended side effects and that the benefits tend to be swallowed whole by Moloch, and they suspect your "long view" is just another delusion. > If the supercomputer could be used to feed a million people today, we would be doing it. Unless it could generate better ROI by optimizing some Facebook ads or some trading algorithms, and then we would probably be doing that.
  - devopsproject 10y ago
    The translation is: my computer cannot grow your food today. It is not that i\we don't care, is that there is a mismatch in tools to solve the current problems. My longview is pretty simple: We can do both. Just because some of us are working for a longer term goal doesn't give you any moral authority to demonize us. It is foolish and arrogant.
    - marknutter 10y ago
      Translation: the ends justify the means.
      - devopsproject 10y ago
        translation: People who work to future problems do not inhibit others from working on today's problems and those people are not blind or out of touch. Go browbeat someone else.
    - inimino 10y ago
      Just because you are working for a long term (technological, scientistic) goal doesn't mean you are above the many different perspectives of the rest of the world. Some of those perspectives may be even longer-term than yours, and may be skeptical of promised future technological solutions to problems exacerbated by the technology we already have. What marknutter is highlighting is the need for a broader perspective. Many of these problems have been with us since the beginning of human history, and the only tools we need have always been within reach: human intelligence and effort. What is lacking is the moral and political will to solve them. It's not the tools we lack, it's responsibility in using the tools we already have.
      - devopsproject 10y ago
        > Just because you are working for a long term (technological, scientistic) goal doesn't mean you are above the many different perspectives of the rest of the world. I've never implied this. You are making severe assumptions and putting words into my mouth