I agree entirely, and have been reflecting on why the techno-optimist perspective falls flat these days, at least in my circles. And I have to admit, they bring up some fair counter-arguments. “Imagine you have a genius-level assistant in your pocket who helps you solve every problem,” I say. And they say, that sounds like the movie Her and pretty terrifying.
Or I offer unlimited renewable and nuclear energy without climate change, and they say we already waste more energy than is necessary.
What about living to 150 in good health? And they respond that it just puts more of a burden on young people, and there won’t be enough young people in the future, anyway.
How about space travel to Mars!? So we can make it the same Disney-like hellhole we’ve created in Venice? Or, alternatively: why travel to Mars when there is still homelessness and famine on our planet?
Even if we win the argument that science funding pays for itself many times over, I still struggle to describe a technological future that feels obviously better than the present, or even the recent past.
Thanks -- that's great fodder for future posts. I have so many simultaneous reactions to that I'm not sure where to start, or I suppose which is most persuasive to what audience. But at a high-level, I think it is two things that haven’t been the fault of science come to mind in terms of framing:
(1) we’ve failed to regulate technology through laws and norms in a way that best mediates its effect on society (climate change, privacy, etc.), but the answer to that is don’t do less science but do better regulation/norms;
(2) we've under-funded basic research such that we haven’t recently seemingly made leaps-forward advances in energy, material science, etc. that make the benefits clear and obvious to regular people--things feel incremental and not transformative, but again the answer is not less science but more.
I get that neither of these is very persuasive framings to critics, though, which is why in The Great Race (https://thegreatrace.us) I argue just fending off China and the rise of autocracy is reason enough.
That said, I don’t believe that is the best reason; I think the best reason is that it is the only long-term path towards higher standards of living, but I guess the disconnect there is making total factor productivity real for people in a tangible way that would clearly improve their lives. This seems a bit hard to do, given that future innovations are by definition unknown, and the one right on the horizon (AI) is scary in all sorts of ways.
And when you try to do that, you also sound like a bit of a nut, e.g., what could we do with essentially infinite free energy, being able to more rapidly maniuplate molecules, etc. So, perhaps it is talking about technologies on the closer horizon we can connect to clear today's problems like modular housing to address our housing shortages. OK, I'm rambling now, but if you have any follow-up thoughts would love to hear them.
I agree entirely, and have been reflecting on why the techno-optimist perspective falls flat these days, at least in my circles. And I have to admit, they bring up some fair counter-arguments. “Imagine you have a genius-level assistant in your pocket who helps you solve every problem,” I say. And they say, that sounds like the movie Her and pretty terrifying.
Or I offer unlimited renewable and nuclear energy without climate change, and they say we already waste more energy than is necessary.
What about living to 150 in good health? And they respond that it just puts more of a burden on young people, and there won’t be enough young people in the future, anyway.
How about space travel to Mars!? So we can make it the same Disney-like hellhole we’ve created in Venice? Or, alternatively: why travel to Mars when there is still homelessness and famine on our planet?
Even if we win the argument that science funding pays for itself many times over, I still struggle to describe a technological future that feels obviously better than the present, or even the recent past.
Thanks -- that's great fodder for future posts. I have so many simultaneous reactions to that I'm not sure where to start, or I suppose which is most persuasive to what audience. But at a high-level, I think it is two things that haven’t been the fault of science come to mind in terms of framing:
(1) we’ve failed to regulate technology through laws and norms in a way that best mediates its effect on society (climate change, privacy, etc.), but the answer to that is don’t do less science but do better regulation/norms;
(2) we've under-funded basic research such that we haven’t recently seemingly made leaps-forward advances in energy, material science, etc. that make the benefits clear and obvious to regular people--things feel incremental and not transformative, but again the answer is not less science but more.
I get that neither of these is very persuasive framings to critics, though, which is why in The Great Race (https://thegreatrace.us) I argue just fending off China and the rise of autocracy is reason enough.
That said, I don’t believe that is the best reason; I think the best reason is that it is the only long-term path towards higher standards of living, but I guess the disconnect there is making total factor productivity real for people in a tangible way that would clearly improve their lives. This seems a bit hard to do, given that future innovations are by definition unknown, and the one right on the horizon (AI) is scary in all sorts of ways.
And when you try to do that, you also sound like a bit of a nut, e.g., what could we do with essentially infinite free energy, being able to more rapidly maniuplate molecules, etc. So, perhaps it is talking about technologies on the closer horizon we can connect to clear today's problems like modular housing to address our housing shortages. OK, I'm rambling now, but if you have any follow-up thoughts would love to hear them.