I am posting this Economist article because I agree with it, and I expect some of you old sour farts will not:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/18/pessimism-v-progress
QuoteFaster, cheaper, better—technology is one field many people rely upon to offer a vision of a brighter future. But as the 2020s dawn, optimism is in short supply. The new technologies that dominated the past decade seem to be making things worse. Social media were supposed to bring people together. In the Arab spring of 2011 they were hailed as a liberating force. Today they are better known for invading privacy, spreading propaganda and undermining democracy. E-commerce, ride-hailing and the gig economy may be convenient, but they are charged with underpaying workers, exacerbating inequality and clogging the streets with vehicles. Parents worry that smartphones have turned their children into screen-addicted zombies.
The technologies expected to dominate the new decade also seem to cast a dark shadow. Artificial intelligence (ai) may well entrench bias and prejudice, threaten your job and shore up authoritarian rulers (see article). 5g is at the heart of the Sino-American trade war. Autonomous cars still do not work, but manage to kill people all the same. Polls show that internet firms are now less trusted than the banking industry. At the very moment banks are striving to rebrand themselves as tech firms, internet giants have become the new banks, morphing from talent magnets to pariahs. Even their employees are in revolt.
The New York Times sums up the encroaching gloom. "A mood of pessimism", it writes, has displaced "the idea of inevitable progress born in the scientific and industrial revolutions." Except those words are from an article published in 1979. Back then the paper fretted that the anxiety was "fed by growing doubts about society's ability to rein in the seemingly runaway forces of technology".
Today's gloomy mood is centred on smartphones and social media, which took off a decade ago. Yet concerns that humanity has taken a technological wrong turn, or that particular technologies might be doing more harm than good, have arisen before. In the 1970s the despondency was prompted by concerns about overpopulation, environmental damage and the prospect of nuclear immolation. The 1920s witnessed a backlash against cars, which had earlier been seen as a miraculous answer to the affliction of horse-drawn vehicles—which filled the streets with noise and dung, and caused congestion and accidents. And the blight of industrialisation was decried in the 19th century by Luddites, Romantics and socialists, who worried (with good reason) about the displacement of skilled artisans, the despoiling of the countryside and the suffering of factory hands toiling in smoke-belching mills.
Stand back, and in each of these historical cases disappointment arose from a mix of unrealised hopes and unforeseen consequences. Technology unleashes the forces of creative destruction, so it is only natural that it leads to anxiety; for any given technology its drawbacks sometimes seem to outweigh its benefits. When this happens with several technologies at once, as today, the result is a wider sense of techno-pessimism.
However, that pessimism can be overdone. Too often people focus on the drawbacks of a new technology while taking its benefits for granted. Worries about screen time should be weighed against the much more substantial benefits of ubiquitous communication and the instant access to information and entertainment that smartphones make possible. A further danger is that Luddite efforts to avoid the short-term costs associated with a new technology will end up denying access to its long-term benefits—something Carl Benedikt Frey, an Oxford academic, calls a "technology trap". Fears that robots will steal people's jobs may prompt politicians to tax them, for example, to discourage their use. Yet in the long run countries that wish to maintain their standard of living as their workforce ages and shrinks will need more robots, not fewer.
That points to another lesson, which is that the remedy to technology-related problems very often involves more technology. Airbags and other improvements in safety features, for example, mean that in America deaths in car accidents per billion miles travelled have fallen from around 240 in the 1920s to around 12 today. ai is being applied as part of the effort to stem the flow of extremist material on social media. The ultimate example is climate change. It is hard to imagine any solution that does not depend in part on innovations in clean energy, carbon capture and energy storage.
The most important lesson is about technology itself. Any powerful technology can be used for good or ill. The internet spreads understanding, but it is also where videos of people being beheaded go viral. Biotechnology can raise crop yields and cure diseases—but it could equally lead to deadly weapons.
Technology itself has no agency: it is the choices people make about it that shape the world. Thus the techlash is a necessary step in the adoption of important new technologies. At its best, it helps frame how society comes to terms with innovations and imposes rules and policies that limit their destructive potential (seat belts, catalytic converters and traffic regulations), accommodate change (universal schooling as a response to industrialisation) or strike a trade-off (between the convenience of ride-hailing and the protection of gig-workers). Healthy scepticism means that these questions are settled by a broad debate, not by a coterie of technologists.
Fire up the moral engine
Perhaps the real source of anxiety is not technology itself, but growing doubts about the ability of societies to hold this debate, and come up with good answers. In that sense, techno-pessimism is a symptom of political pessimism. Yet there is something perversely reassuring about this: a gloomy debate is much better than no debate at all. And history still argues, on the whole, for optimism. The technological transformation since the Industrial Revolution has helped curb ancient evils, from child mortality to hunger and ignorance. Yes, the planet is warming and antibiotic resistance is spreading. But the solution to such problems calls for the deployment of more technology, not less. So as the decade turns, put aside the gloom for a moment. To be alive in the tech-obsessed 2020s is to be among the luckiest people who have ever lived.
Sour old farts? Isn't it the sour young farts that like to proclaim that the Boomers have ruined the planet, leaving nothing for the young? :P
In short, isn't pessimism as widespread - if not moreso - among the young?
Technology is not the problem, rampant mature capitalism is.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 19, 2019, 09:15:48 AM
Technology is not the problem, rampant mature capitalism is.
Indeed.
I haven't encountered any techno-pessimism, or certainly no more now than 30 years ago. The problems described are about society (which they kind of say), and there's a lot of pessimism in that area. You don't need advanced technology to hurt people on a massive scale in a society that's unsound, machetes and AK butts will do just fine as demonstrated in the 90s.
I've never read an article that more vividly reminds you of the fact that most Economst writers are 20-something Oxbridge grads with a degree in the humanities :lol: :P
12 deaths per Billion miles sounds extremely good... so I don't believe it.
I don't know what the complaint is about. Technology advances. That's a given. There is no option to halt the progress of technology. The only possibility is to adapt, or die trying.
I don't get what its trying to say here.
Its not guns that kill people, its people?
Well fucking duh. They still need a gun to do it though.
Certainly a decade ago I was a believer in how the internet would improve democracy and freedom and all round awesomeness- knowledge for all!..... not considered was that old people were't going away, they would try and figure out the interwebs, and would be exceptionally gullible.
Odd that the article uses cars as an analogy for something that we used to fear but has worked out...quite the opposite no? They were seen as the future, countries were rebuilt around them in the mid 20th century. We now see that was an absolutely awful idea which has greatly contributed to the destruction of society and the environment. The solution to the problems of cars is not airbags. Its to go back to the technologies which in the mid 20th century were dismissed as outdated and useless.
As Tyr shows I was indeed wrong about old sour farts. It's just sour farts :p
The solution to problems of cars is to go back to.....horses and buggies?
But I want a Tesla Model X. :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2019, 06:22:38 PM
But I want a Tesla Model X. :(
Maybe they'll have electric horses in Tyr's dystopia.
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2019, 04:38:42 PM
The solution to problems of cars is to go back to.....horses and buggies?
Trams and trains.
Trams in particular were pushed to the brink of extinction and are now coming back in a big way.
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2019, 03:04:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2019, 04:38:42 PM
The solution to problems of cars is to go back to.....horses and buggies?
Trams and trains.
Trams in particular were pushed to the brink of extinction and are now coming back in a big way.
Right this instant, I can hear an "outdated and useless" train going by....
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2019, 04:20:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2019, 03:04:04 AM
Trams and trains.
Trams in particular were pushed to the brink of extinction and are now coming back in a big way.
Right this instant, I can hear an "outdated and useless" train going by....
I think the combination of mobility apps and electric scooters/bikes could have a big impact in Europe and other regions with high-density metro areas.
I recently decided to buy a condo at a place that is ~30 minutes from the city center by bus, yet barely 5-10 minutes with a scooter.
One of the main selling points was that the place is also a 3 minute walk from the company bus stop, which means I could save quite a bit on gas (with the added advantage of reducing personal emissions). I could conceivably forego cars altogether when my current one dies (it's almost 15 years old now).
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2019, 04:20:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2019, 03:04:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2019, 04:38:42 PM
The solution to problems of cars is to go back to.....horses and buggies?
Trams and trains.
Trams in particular were pushed to the brink of extinction and are now coming back in a big way.
Right this instant, I can hear an "outdated and useless" train going by....
Yeah but cities were re-designed the focus on the car - which was the vehicle of the future. In the UK and, I think the US, public transport networks like trams were torn up - there used to be a tram network in almost every British city. Non-core lines on railways networks were shut down.
And instead billions were spent on new motorways and re-designing cities. A few cities were able to resist - I believe New York and Copenhagen did, in London there was a bit protest movement to stop the plan to build four inter-linked ring roads right into the centre of London (and demolish, say Covent Garden) on the go.
It's really striking that the cities that best kept a form of early 20th century public transport and slightly resisted the age of the car are the cities that are now growing fastest and most economically vibrant, while the cities that bet big on cars are generally less successful.
Well we can either complain about big cities sucking the life out of everywhere else, or about travel being too car-centric.
Quote from: Tamas on December 21, 2019, 09:57:22 AM
Well we can either complain about big cities sucking the life out of everywhere else, or about travel being too car-centric.
The two go together quite nicely.
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2019, 10:49:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 21, 2019, 09:57:22 AM
Well we can either complain about big cities sucking the life out of everywhere else, or about travel being too car-centric.
The two go together quite nicely.
Tram lines to little towns across miles of countryside are NOT the future, as much as I detest that.
Yeah. But Tyr's right public transport isn't and wasn't just for big cities - Bolton, Carlisle, Cambridge, Brighton, Taunton, even towns like Wantage used to have trams.
And if you have a rail network into and between towns and then public transport in those towns you mitigate the need for cars.
I also think given the climate moving away from cars is a morally urgent task that we need to do and that means far more public transport of the type we had at the turn of the twentieth century and then tore up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 21, 2019, 11:33:17 AM
Yeah. But Tyr's right public transport isn't and wasn't just for big cities - Bolton, Carlisle, Cambridge, Brighton, Taunton, even towns like Wantage used to have trams.
And if you have a rail network into and between towns and then public transport in those towns you mitigate the need for cars.
I also think given the climate moving away from cars is a morally urgent task that we need to do and that means far more public transport of the type we had at the turn of the twentieth century and then tore up.
Fair enough. Although trams have not been disbanded everywhere. They are a major thing in Budapest for example, and exist in a couple of smaller cities as well.
Quote from: Tamas on December 21, 2019, 11:19:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2019, 10:49:42 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 21, 2019, 09:57:22 AM
Well we can either complain about big cities sucking the life out of everywhere else, or about travel being too car-centric.
The two go together quite nicely.
Tram lines to little towns across miles of countryside are NOT the future, as much as I detest that.
You never know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model
There's talk that if we ever get a government that gives a shit thats the way the metro in Newcastle may develop. In Manchester it largely is to an extent.
IMO better transport is THE way the government can start paying attention to the small towns.
The industries and the coal mines aren't coming back. Your Wigans and Blyths aren't going to be particularly rich places in their own right. However by allowing them to tap into the local cities they can profit from the gains there (and they in turn profit from tapping into London and the world at large)
Quote
Fair enough. Although trams have not been disbanded everywhere. They are a major thing in Budapest for example, and exist in a couple of smaller cities as well.
I believe in eastern europe they did a much better job of surviving thanks to central planning et al.
They were the doctrinally correct proper communist choice unlike those capitalist autocars...which is also a contributor to their demise in the west.
And the start is buses - because they're cheap to implement. It's deeply unsexy but I genuinely think the 1985 bus deregulation act is one of the worst pieces of legislation and getting rid of that would just give local councils everywhere else in the country a similar level of power as TfL.
Merseyside and Manchester have worked on public transport, but if they had anything like the powers London government does they could do so much more and as you say it would affect the towns in those ares - Bury, Wigan, Warrington etc.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 21, 2019, 11:56:43 AM
And the start is buses - because they're cheap to implement. It's deeply unsexy but I genuinely think the 1985 bus deregulation act is one of the worst pieces of legislation and getting rid of that would just give local councils everywhere else in the country a similar level of power as TfL.
:yes:
Another reason to curse Thatcher.
If only the metropolitan counties had remained intact...sigh.
Quote
Merseyside and Manchester have worked on public transport, but if they had anything like the powers London government does they could do so much more and as you say it would affect the towns in those ares - Bury, Wigan, Warrington etc.
Things look good in Manchester at least. They're looking to break through with a London style integrated system.
When Newcastle tried the same though the government said no. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 21, 2019, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2019, 04:20:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2019, 03:04:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 20, 2019, 04:38:42 PM
The solution to problems of cars is to go back to.....horses and buggies?
Trams and trains.
Trams in particular were pushed to the brink of extinction and are now coming back in a big way.
Right this instant, I can hear an "outdated and useless" train going by....
Yeah but cities were re-designed the focus on the car - which was the vehicle of the future. In the UK and, I think the US, public transport networks like trams were torn up - there used to be a tram network in almost every British city. Non-core lines on railways networks were shut down.
And instead billions were spent on new motorways and re-designing cities. A few cities were able to resist - I believe New York and Copenhagen did, in London there was a bit protest movement to stop the plan to build four inter-linked ring roads right into the centre of London (and demolish, say Covent Garden) on the go.
It's really striking that the cities that best kept a form of early 20th century public transport and slightly resisted the age of the car are the cities that are now growing fastest and most economically vibrant, while the cities that bet big on cars are generally less successful.
Vancouver had a plan in the 70s to go the way of many US cities and build a major freeway system into and through the city. It was the done thing. Shortly after that work was started (a couple of kilometers were built) a new city council put an and to it. Now the areas the freeway system would have passed through are some of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the city and the surrounding areas, some of the most liveable. The city is now dismantling the freeway corridor that had been built and converting it to residential.
Texas is one of the fastest growing and prosperous places in the planet and we barely have any trains or trams or ever had them. I hate to throw a wrench in everybody's predetermined conclusion here...
And unless all our cities are leveled in a war or something that is not changing...
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2019, 01:14:45 PM
Texas is one of the fastest growing and prosperous places in the planet and we barely have any trains or trams or ever had them. I hate to throw a wrench in everybody's predetermined conclusion here...
And unless all our cities are leveled in a war or something that is not changing...
Sustainably so?
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2019, 01:14:45 PM
Texas is one of the fastest growing and prosperous places in the planet and we barely have any trains or trams or ever had them. I hate to throw a wrench in everybody's predetermined conclusion here...
And unless all our cities are leveled in a war or something that is not changing...
It would be good to know what you mean by prosperous.
By the measure here the US doesn't really do all that well. Not sure how Texas alone would rank.
https://www.prosperity.com/rankings
Also does predetermined now mean, things you don't agree with :P
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2019, 01:14:45 PM
Texas is one of the fastest growing and prosperous places in the planet and we barely have any trains or trams or ever had them. I hate to throw a wrench in everybody's predetermined conclusion here...
And unless all our cities are leveled in a war or something that is not changing...
Sure and I did say generally. There will be exceptions. But for most of the post-war era the predetermined conclusion was the car was the future, public transport was not anywhere near as important as making sure there was space for cars.
And in those years that was right the big cities declined and small towns/suburbs and new car-friendly cities did well. That trend has now generally reversed.
QuoteSustainably so?
I think heating/cooling is probably the bigger sustainability issue with places like Texas. At the minute 50% of global carbon emissions is tied to heating or cooling our environment. It is far bigger than transport or electricity and needs to be solved. I know one start-up that's got some very useful products on this that can work for colder environments (UK, Northern Europe). I don't know about solving AC.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 21, 2019, 01:49:59 PM
I think heating/cooling is probably the bigger sustainability issue with places like Texas. At the minute 50% of global carbon emissions is tied to heating or cooling our environment. It is far bigger than transport or electricity and needs to be solved. I know one start-up that's got some very useful products on this that can work for colder environments (UK, Northern Europe). I don't know about solving AC.
And their economy, much like Alberta, is tied to fossil fuels...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/07/texas-permian-basin-shale-climate-crisis
Texas has a shitload more people than Alberta, mostly doing modern service economy jobs.