zachster77 t1_ja7ofgv wrote
Reply to comment by Starfire70 in The Desert of the Virtual. The metaverse heralds an age in which hardly anyone still believes that tech firms can actually solve our problems by Maxwellsdemon17
I think you’re right about the repeatable nature of innovation, but this isn’t just about individuals. It’s about the overall impact of innovation on society.
Look at medicine, which I think has clearly shown how innovation can benefit humankind. We lock it up behind capitalist roadblocks, and it’s become a carrot, driving us to exhaustion on low-wage treadmills.
The only innovation accessible, and unencumbered to the masses are useless distractions, driving alienation, and selling u healthy lifestyles.
Meanwhile, money flows upwards to innovators while the majority flounder.
Technology was supposed to democratize success. It seems more like it Feudalzed it.
omega1212 t1_ja7rnm7 wrote
As a correction money does not mostly flow to innovators but to their investors and the rest of the capital class. They rarely see more than a few percent of the value of what they produce
zachster77 t1_ja7tngi wrote
That’s a good point. I should put innovators in quotes throughout. Innovation is like the idea of progress. Progress towards what? What end? At what cost?
omega1212 t1_ja7zeyk wrote
Certainly. Beyond the clearly undemocratic nature of the aim being decided more interestingly I wonder if it could be decided democratically, or at least at an individual level
zachster77 t1_ja84vi0 wrote
I think I get what you mean. But I’m not sure “the wisdom of the crowd” serves us well in situations like these. Popularity contests only reward the currently popular.
Have you read Kim Stanley Robinson? He (among others) sometimes writes about Ecological Economics. Tying capitalistic rewards to systems that benefit the planet (and us as one of its animals), could put our long term goals in alignment with our short-term baser instincts.
omega1212 t1_ja87py4 wrote
That's fair. I think I just trust crowds more than elites in ethical questions (for logical ones it's the reverse). They're more likely to think of themselves in bad and good positions of hypothetical social arrangements.
And no I haven't! I largely agree with that statement about aligning incentives, if not for the tendency towards regulatory capture, not sure how you account for that
zachster77 t1_ja87vta wrote
Yeah, we certainly haven’t solved for that yet, unfortunately.
omega1212 t1_ja89cew wrote
Maybe publicly financed elections would do it indirectly. But yeah it seems power is where all the good ideas go to die lol
wwen42 t1_ja8joac wrote
No, because democracy is dumb. Literally. Over 50% of the US read at a 6th grade level and you want them to decide how to innovate? That's fucking crazy if you ask me. Which you didn't but there it is anyway. YMMV.
omega1212 t1_ja8w7xm wrote
It's more about the "aim" of innovation, i.e. what social configuration and lifestyle are we trying to enable with technology. If you ask the billionaire class they might be interested in a future where a lot of people (other than them) work a ton to advance their visions of the future. And if you ask everyone else they might think we should automate as much as possible to enable creativity and human freedom
AbyssalRedemption t1_jabeg6q wrote
I mean, this is definitely kind of the problem of our times. Billionaires and corporations have taken into charging forward into the “technological determinism” paradigm, where technological “progress” takes precedence and society should adapt to it, as opposed to innovating tech and progress BASED on society’s evolving demands, ala a sort of “technological voluntarism”. They’ve pushed this so much over the past few decades that I think most of society just accepts that it’s the status quo. Meanwhile, it’s this rampant, uncontrolled, unmonitored growth that’s leading to the planet’s rampant exploitation/ destruction, and humanity failing to keep up with the rate of technology. It’s not a sustainable model anymore.
Rofel_Wodring t1_ja9mkfw wrote
>No, because democracy is dumb. Literally. Over 50% of the US read at a 6th grade level and you want them to decide how to innovate?
People say stupid shit like this and yet always whine about elites exploiting them.
As if there was some faction of Herrenvolk Loyalist Elites who, unlike every other elite that ever existed, will not ever betray their underlings to benefit their peers. Oh, if only these fictional Volkheit-promoting elites were in power, instead of the stupid masses or our corrupt leadership!
OriginalCompetitive t1_ja8tzgu wrote
Really? The COVID vaccines were developed in a year and distributed for free to the public. More generally, cancer deaths are plummeting and it’s not because people are living healthier lives, it’s because new cancer treatments are available to the general public.
zachster77 t1_ja8z9eb wrote
Are you sure either of those situations are in conflict with my point?
While the COVID vaccine was free to the public, the pharmaceutical companies were paid by various governments, resulting in record profits. All while much of the work for developing the vaccines was made possible by public funding.
For cancer treatments, look at this release:
Cancer is discussed like it's a natural resource the medical sector can mine for profits. And while ultimately it's a good thing that lives are being saved, the financial pressures to attain that salvation is devastating for many people. I'm sure you know that medical debt is the number two cause of bankruptcy (in the US at least).
OriginalCompetitive t1_ja9wjbt wrote
Maybe I misunderstood your point. By “lock it up behind capitalist roadblocks,” I figured you meant ordinary people don’t benefit. Clearly everyone benefited from the free vaccines. And if the manufacturers earned a handsome profit along the way, I don’t really have a problem with that. I want drug companies salivating at the thought of getting rich by developing important new vaccines.
I’m also not troubled that companies “mine cancer for profits.” That’s another way of saying “earn money by saving people’s lives.” Better than drilling for oil or running a casino.
I agree medical bankruptcies are a problem. But I’m honestly not sure quite what to make of them. Bernie Sanders claims 500,000 medical bankruptcies per year. But in a nation of 330 million, that’s less than one-half of one percent of the population. So it’s not really evidence that most people aren’t getting cancer treatments.
zachster77 t1_jaa1a7a wrote
Is it so easy to minimize the trauma of medical bankruptcies by reducing them to a percentage? 500,000 people dealing with physical and emotional struggles, also having to start their financial lives over? Every year?
If you think about the human experience of these people, I doubt you can dismiss them as a rounding error.
And again, most medical innovation is done with public money, or at the very least R&D tax rebates. The pharmaceutical companies often spend more on marketing elective drugs than they do developing treatments.
Publicly funded innovation should be provided at cost to patients.
OriginalCompetitive t1_jab4401 wrote
I don’t think I’m minimizing, just putting into context.
I genuinely am puzzled by medical bankruptcies though. I often think people who complain about US health insurance don’t actually understand the system. Assuming you don’t have insurance through work, Americans who earn less than $55k per year are eligible for insurance subsidies. And even on the lowest bronze plan, the total maximum out of pocket payment is $7000 per year.
Granted, it’s possible to go bankrupt over $7000, but my hunch is that most of them are people who never signed up. I’m still sympathetic, but there’s only so much the government can do. That said, I’d be ok with public healthcare too.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments