Globalisation

[Eddie Teach]

What can I say.  Hong Kong won't even exist without globalisation.

So net negative then?

[Valmy]

When my father bemoans the end of the factory, it's not the 19th c. steel mill, or the 21st century sweatshop he bemoans; it's the factory that existed under social-democracy.

I don't know man. Working in a coal mine seems shit no matter how generous the wages might be. Even the strip mining for lignite we do here in Texas.

[Admiral Yi]

When my father bemoans the end of the factory, it's not the 19th c. steel mill, or the 21st century sweatshop he bemoans; it's the factory that existed under social-democracy.

Easy enough to get there.  We just need to start another world war that wipes out half the world's industrial capacity.

[PDH]

Rather than simply using "technology" as a reckoning, I think it is interesting to look at "complexity" as the ongoing increase in human social systems.  Over the past 14k years or so, the human condition has been to have greater numbers of people living in systems that are more complex.  Technology is one aspect of that, but so too has religion, social differentiation, economic interaction, and so on...all seeing cycles that lead to greater complexity.

The forager at the end of the ice age would not just be astonished at what has been wrought, but also just how incomprehensible the actions and interactions of all aspects of society are.  We laud ourselves with notions that technology has been a good overall, as if it is somehow divorced from the rest of the social condition.  Even something as simple seeming as social status has undergone so many nuanced changes over this time that it would be strikingly unfathomable to this person.

Now, this said, the complexity of the present is something that has been ongoing this whole time.  Layers upon layers of new interactions, ideas, faiths, means of doing business, tools with which to do that business with...have become more complex.  The difficulty in all of this is that at the beginning of the Modern Period, the rate of increase in these complexities has kicked up.  What we are left with is culture often out of step with the change, and that leads to all manner of problems.

None of this is meant to judge, but rather it is important to look at more than simple the technology in the scope of human society and culture.

[DGuller]

A few negative effects can hardly overshadow the vast progress that technology has meant for the human condition.

It was only after we invented agriculture and some other basic technologies that people even had a chance to become philosophers.

And what we gained in deadlier weapons, we way over compensated with medicine, hygiene, nutrition etc.

Not every bit of technology is a collective good, but technology overall is.

One problem with technology is that the first nuclear war will multiply by zero all the progress it has previously brought, and then subtract some more.

[Valmy]

And that is not just the only way things might go terribly wrong.

[crazy canuck]

Rather than simply using "technology" as a reckoning, I think it is interesting to look at "complexity" as the ongoing increase in human social systems.  Over the past 14k years or so, the human condition has been to have greater numbers of people living in systems that are more complex.  Technology is one aspect of that, but so too has religion, social differentiation, economic interaction, and so on...all seeing cycles that lead to greater complexity.

The forager at the end of the ice age would not just be astonished at what has been wrought, but also just how incomprehensible the actions and interactions of all aspects of society are.  We laud ourselves with notions that technology has been a good overall, as if it is somehow divorced from the rest of the social condition.  Even something as simple seeming as social status has undergone so many nuanced changes over this time that it would be strikingly unfathomable to this person.

Now, this said, the complexity of the present is something that has been ongoing this whole time.  Layers upon layers of new interactions, ideas, faiths, means of doing business, tools with which to do that business with...have become more complex.  The difficulty in all of this is that at the beginning of the Modern Period, the rate of increase in these complexities has kicked up.  What we are left with is culture often out of step with the change, and that leads to all manner of problems.

None of this is meant to judge, but rather it is important to look at more than simple the technology in the scope of human society and culture.

A modern restatement of Durkheim?

[The Brain]

I don't know if any group has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into technological progress.

However, I don't think any amount of intellectual mush can successfully make the case that technology hasn't vastly improved things like food security, shelter, healthcare etc for individuals, and greatly increased the number of individuals. Of course, whether those are positives or not is just a question of values where there is no correct answer. There are certainly many people who think they are negatives.

[Zanza]

A few negative effects can hardly overshadow the vast progress that technology has meant for the human condition.
It was only after we invented agriculture and some other basic technologies that people even had a chance to become philosophers.

I don't know how one can meaningfully make that calculation outside an article of faith. At best, we end up self-congratulating ourselves for a history that seems inevitably to lead to us. I am happy we have philosophers. But I also know that philosophers emerged in societies that had had to become vastly unequal. Was it better to live a slave in the Roman Empire, or a free man amongst the Scythians or the Germans? How can we meaningfully answer these things? Was it better to work at the factory for 10-12 hours, or in the fields for 5-6? Is it better to have two weeks of paid vacation, or to live in a society where one day out of three is a holy day? We are products of societies which obviously value the kind of things which make us judge past societies as lacking, but that says little about the goods of technology. The "compensatory" technologies you evoke were not explicitly devised as compensation: only in this quite debatable cost-benefit analysis are we putting them side by side, as if "technology" was a self-animating force. In fact, I can very easily envision a society in which technology is used to enslave others (and to call this "a few negative effects" seems cold for something deployed at that scale): it's not the cotton gin that killed slavery, it's political activism. More technology doesn't necessarily makes us freer, or more equal, or even more comfortable if there is no political will to make it so.

Fair enough, I get your point now. But to me it is a hen and egg issue. Societal progress was often only possible after technological advances and technological advances only become a positive contribution when they are used in the right societal framework that is shaped by politics. As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

[The Brain]

As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

wut

[Zanza]

As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

wut

Sweden is one of the best countries in the world thanks to, not despite social democracy.

[The Brain]

As it happens, I consider social democracy, not any technological advance, the greatest achievement of the 20th century. No other development has ever helped so many people out of poverty and its related ills.

wut

Sweden is one of the best countries in the world thanks to, not despite social democracy.

Even if we accept certain fictions, how many countries have even had social democratic regimes for any length of time? And bigger impact than stuff like artificial fertilizer or a number of other technological or socio-economic things that one can think of?

[Admiral Yi]

That's a very suspect statement Zanza.  First you're ignoring the massive amount of people lifted out of poverty in places like China.  Second the question of whether the people who's lives were improved by social democracy were actually living in poverty to begin with.

[Zanza]

Even if we accept certain fictions, how many countries have even had social democratic regimes for any length of time? And bigger impact than stuff like artificial fertilizer or a number of other technological or socio-economic things that one can think of?

Western Europe and North America have had more or less social democratic governments at least since the end of WW2, sometimes earlier. No party in Sweden seriously questions universal healthcare, social security or labor rights, right? The only political question is the degree and mechanism, not the general concept anymore. It's not as pronounced in the United States as in other countries, but the US has had most elements of a social democracy since the New Deal, although it has certainly also weakened them the most in the last three and a half decades or so. The GOP does not really tackle entitlements anymore either as it has become consensus that these social democratic institutions are there to stay.

[Zanza]

That's a very suspect statement Zanza.  First you're ignoring the massive amount of people lifted out of poverty in places like China.  Second the question of whether the people who's lives were improved by social democracy were actually living in poverty to begin with.

China is actually interesting, but I conveniently limited myself to the 20th century.