Mar 20, 2023·edited Mar 20, 2023Liked by Packy McCormick
While I appreciate this analysis, I am struggling with the underlying premise to which you return in your conclusion:
"I tend to agree with Ernie’s observation that, 'This is precisely why people are pessimistic in the face of increasing material progress. They’ve lost their old source of meaning from the struggle to survive, and can’t find their own way forward.'
As technology enables longer lives and more free time and more material abundance, it leaves an equal and opposite opportunity for humans to turn that potential happiness into real happiness."
Have we lost our source of meaning from the struggle to survive? Despite the indisputable progress you cited in terms of life expectancy, child mortality, democratization, etc., we (for transparency, citizens of democratic nations that have high life expectancy and low child mortality) have simply traded these dangerous phenomena for others; survival is now a function of access to credit because survival now has a dollar-denominated cost and there is insufficient capital (or imbalanced distribution of capital). Credit is impaired by factors like racism or astronomically inflated costs of college (the leverage for which is not dischargeable by bankruptcy). This impairment has residual consequences on things like homeownership and the accumulation of wealth. Combined with other circumstances like the divergence between wages and cost-of-living (which can be partially attributed to the natural inclination of the tech industry and VC to pursue lower costs and better margins), people who enjoy all the benefits of current progress are either working more hours for [effectively] less compensation or are undertaking onerous amounts of debt to [temporarily] pursue happiness (until their debt is called).
But are we really surprised by that? Senator Kennedy (R-La.) literally just said on the record "I mean, the life expectancy of the average American right now is about 77 years old. For people who are in their 20s, their life expectancy will probably be 85 to 90. Does it really make sense to allow someone who’s in their 20s today to retire at 62?"
I don't think we've lost a sense of meaning. I think we're bewildered that, given all the progress, we are unable to reap the reward of selecting what is meaningful to us and obtaining that because we are still too busy fighting for survival just in a more complicated and confusing context than adapting for temperature extremes (although it's remarkable how we're already undoing all our progress on that front, isn't it?), procuring sufficient nutrition and hydration (although, again, how are we still seeing clean water crises in this day and age?), and erecting adequate shelter.
If the goal is to pursue happiness, then it might be most easily visualized by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If we stipulate to tech having been instrumental in helping us realize the foundational layer of physiological needs and ostensibly the next level of safety needs, why are we committing more of our lives to the employment implicit in that level and not to ascending to love and belonging, esteem, or self-actualization?
There are plenty of opportunities for meaning in front of us and I disagree that people can't find their way forward, they are being obstructed.
Personally I hold a lot weight in the philosophical theory of the Capabilities Approach, which is essentially that what makes humans happy is learned and applied capabilities. I think as long as the future of technology doesn't infringe on people's capacity and motivation to acquire new capabilities (instead of delegating everything to technology), there's only upside to advancing technology beyond what we currently imagine.
The purpose of technology is to increase the potential for human happiness.”
(Caveat: I am often pessimistic about tech so my criticism of it comes from that place. Maybe I need to be more optimistic.)
Do people producing a majority of the tech we use actually believe this or do most of them simply optimize for engagement at any cost? In my opinion, until the incentives change (no idea what that looks like), the most adopted tech will continue to be soulless and the opposite of happiness-inducing. I get frustrated that anyone is surprised or confused by our current negative relationship with tech. I have to check my bias about this at the door because I will admit that I struggle mightily with being pessimistic about tech. Mostly because of what I see in my day to day experience. It’s hard not to be. I teach at the High School level and if you sit in a room full of teenagers during any type of idle moment, I’d like to think it’s hard not to be suspicious about all the promises and grandiosity.
I feel like the promise of most tech (especially social facilitation) is gaslighting us all into continued adoption even though it is so clearly to our detriment. Everyone is walking around with a device that has turned our time into a commodity to be harvested by powerfully addictive forces. It’s a boring thesis at this point, but to me, it is the simplest and the most true. And it seems like most of us have just capitulated to the idea of it all. I realize that pessimism is easy and sounds smarter and is a trap sometimes, but I can’t help it. I see a tyranny of convenience and a whole lot of ideas that abstract our reality in unhelpful ways to most human beings.
I think technology does improve people's happiness, but social media doesn't. I think the issue is social media and not technology that causes a person to be unhappy.
I think people are not unhappy with technology. I think they are unhappy that technological progress has not significantly decreased the labor required to maintain a standard quality of life. This is because the benefits of technological progress accrue to the owner of the firm and consumers, and not to labor.
Beautiful and profound hypothesis. In fact, I always like to use the term "multiplier" associated with technology. When there was not enough technology to be perceived as such, humanity set goals knowing that everything had to come through its own abilities or at best, the "divine" dimension could help. Goals were commensurate with potential.
Considering technology as a "tool," previously one operated with simple "additions." One would set oneself to get to 10, and do the sum 1+2+3+4=10
Technology, simply changed mathematical operators! 1*2*3*4=24. It gave us new tools to create more and more complex expressions. The result changes, so the goals change, but our work remains constant.
But be careful, because it can also make things more difficult (1/2/3/4=0.0416 :-)
So happiness is found within ourselves, and technology being an extension of ourselves can only make things better or worse. Everything depends on us, as it has always been.
With all your ideas about WHAT lies in the future, you don't seem to propose HOW humans will pursue happiness. What the hell are we supposed to do if everything is taken care of for us?
Definitely thought-provoking. Two additional lines of thought that would be interesting to explore: intention and power. Because we're talking about people (those who work and control tech, not technology itself), intention matters. People are much more willing to forgive unintended consequences knowing it's impossible to predict the future, provided those who built in had genuinely positive intentions, AND are willing to change course to try to further human happiness when things don't go as planned. And power matters. The frustration also comes from the immense power wielded by what many perceive as a monopolistic industry, coupled with those dubious intentions.
I love this line. "The purpose of technology is not to be used, but to increase the potential for happiness." However, using a technology is what may eventually lead to that technology or other techs on top of it to create happiness in the appropriate sectors. Great article.
Achievement unlocked: provoke a blogger with comments until he writes an entire column about it. :-)
Thank you. I deeply appreciate -- as always -- the humanity and humility you bring to this role. It makes me optimistic!
I have many other thought, but I will save them for later. In the meantime, if anyone is curious about whether it is even possible to design technology to maximize “meaning” I encourage you to check out Joe Edelman’s philosophical and technical work at the School for Social Design https://humsys.substack.com/
I think there is a lot of technological innovation that happens outside of Silicon Valley as well. Silicon Valley has become great at creating problems and then creating toolkits with more tools to create problems and growing these entities into multi billion dollar businesses. Also, the high technology or information technology sector only represents 10% of U.S. national GDP so it comes in around $1.9 Trillion annually and that is not a small part of the economy but nonetheless a part of a broader economy. Increasingly venture capitalist are reaching into emerging markets. You can reach these toolkits from anywhere there is internet connection.
Not basic enough, people are unhappy with venture capital for the same reason the jackal is unhappy with the lion that has just brought down a big kill--- go back a few million years to research human happiness.
I just wrote about this a few months ago but you did a WAY better job. Totally agree with it, Monkey Brain used to reward us for escaping the tiger chasing us, now it doesn’t quite know what to do, and gives us the happy accomplishment chemical for getting lots of kills in CoD..
I think one area that you're not addressing enough is the difference between the benefits of technology at large vs the personal enrichment that a smaller and smaller group of people benefit from. This is a trend that is only accelerating and I think that when people look at the distribution of technology wealth it gets conflated with the broader benefits of the underlying technology.
People hate the VCs because VCs optimize for their own wealth most often at the expense of the majority. There could be alternatives to VCs directing what technologies get developed that would be much more optimizing for happiness for many more people. A good view of this was the recent post by Cory Doctorow "Gig Work Is the Opposite of Steampunk" https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/20/love-the-machine/#hate-the-factory
While I appreciate this analysis, I am struggling with the underlying premise to which you return in your conclusion:
"I tend to agree with Ernie’s observation that, 'This is precisely why people are pessimistic in the face of increasing material progress. They’ve lost their old source of meaning from the struggle to survive, and can’t find their own way forward.'
As technology enables longer lives and more free time and more material abundance, it leaves an equal and opposite opportunity for humans to turn that potential happiness into real happiness."
Have we lost our source of meaning from the struggle to survive? Despite the indisputable progress you cited in terms of life expectancy, child mortality, democratization, etc., we (for transparency, citizens of democratic nations that have high life expectancy and low child mortality) have simply traded these dangerous phenomena for others; survival is now a function of access to credit because survival now has a dollar-denominated cost and there is insufficient capital (or imbalanced distribution of capital). Credit is impaired by factors like racism or astronomically inflated costs of college (the leverage for which is not dischargeable by bankruptcy). This impairment has residual consequences on things like homeownership and the accumulation of wealth. Combined with other circumstances like the divergence between wages and cost-of-living (which can be partially attributed to the natural inclination of the tech industry and VC to pursue lower costs and better margins), people who enjoy all the benefits of current progress are either working more hours for [effectively] less compensation or are undertaking onerous amounts of debt to [temporarily] pursue happiness (until their debt is called).
But are we really surprised by that? Senator Kennedy (R-La.) literally just said on the record "I mean, the life expectancy of the average American right now is about 77 years old. For people who are in their 20s, their life expectancy will probably be 85 to 90. Does it really make sense to allow someone who’s in their 20s today to retire at 62?"
I don't think we've lost a sense of meaning. I think we're bewildered that, given all the progress, we are unable to reap the reward of selecting what is meaningful to us and obtaining that because we are still too busy fighting for survival just in a more complicated and confusing context than adapting for temperature extremes (although it's remarkable how we're already undoing all our progress on that front, isn't it?), procuring sufficient nutrition and hydration (although, again, how are we still seeing clean water crises in this day and age?), and erecting adequate shelter.
If the goal is to pursue happiness, then it might be most easily visualized by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If we stipulate to tech having been instrumental in helping us realize the foundational layer of physiological needs and ostensibly the next level of safety needs, why are we committing more of our lives to the employment implicit in that level and not to ascending to love and belonging, esteem, or self-actualization?
There are plenty of opportunities for meaning in front of us and I disagree that people can't find their way forward, they are being obstructed.
Personally I hold a lot weight in the philosophical theory of the Capabilities Approach, which is essentially that what makes humans happy is learned and applied capabilities. I think as long as the future of technology doesn't infringe on people's capacity and motivation to acquire new capabilities (instead of delegating everything to technology), there's only upside to advancing technology beyond what we currently imagine.
“What is Technology For?
The purpose of technology is to increase the potential for human happiness.”
(Caveat: I am often pessimistic about tech so my criticism of it comes from that place. Maybe I need to be more optimistic.)
Do people producing a majority of the tech we use actually believe this or do most of them simply optimize for engagement at any cost? In my opinion, until the incentives change (no idea what that looks like), the most adopted tech will continue to be soulless and the opposite of happiness-inducing. I get frustrated that anyone is surprised or confused by our current negative relationship with tech. I have to check my bias about this at the door because I will admit that I struggle mightily with being pessimistic about tech. Mostly because of what I see in my day to day experience. It’s hard not to be. I teach at the High School level and if you sit in a room full of teenagers during any type of idle moment, I’d like to think it’s hard not to be suspicious about all the promises and grandiosity.
I feel like the promise of most tech (especially social facilitation) is gaslighting us all into continued adoption even though it is so clearly to our detriment. Everyone is walking around with a device that has turned our time into a commodity to be harvested by powerfully addictive forces. It’s a boring thesis at this point, but to me, it is the simplest and the most true. And it seems like most of us have just capitulated to the idea of it all. I realize that pessimism is easy and sounds smarter and is a trap sometimes, but I can’t help it. I see a tyranny of convenience and a whole lot of ideas that abstract our reality in unhelpful ways to most human beings.
I think technology does improve people's happiness, but social media doesn't. I think the issue is social media and not technology that causes a person to be unhappy.
I will leave you with one question, though:
What if happiness and meaning are anti-correlated?
Or more gently, they diverge after a certain point?
I think people are not unhappy with technology. I think they are unhappy that technological progress has not significantly decreased the labor required to maintain a standard quality of life. This is because the benefits of technological progress accrue to the owner of the firm and consumers, and not to labor.
Beautiful and profound hypothesis. In fact, I always like to use the term "multiplier" associated with technology. When there was not enough technology to be perceived as such, humanity set goals knowing that everything had to come through its own abilities or at best, the "divine" dimension could help. Goals were commensurate with potential.
Considering technology as a "tool," previously one operated with simple "additions." One would set oneself to get to 10, and do the sum 1+2+3+4=10
Technology, simply changed mathematical operators! 1*2*3*4=24. It gave us new tools to create more and more complex expressions. The result changes, so the goals change, but our work remains constant.
But be careful, because it can also make things more difficult (1/2/3/4=0.0416 :-)
So happiness is found within ourselves, and technology being an extension of ourselves can only make things better or worse. Everything depends on us, as it has always been.
With all your ideas about WHAT lies in the future, you don't seem to propose HOW humans will pursue happiness. What the hell are we supposed to do if everything is taken care of for us?
Definitely thought-provoking. Two additional lines of thought that would be interesting to explore: intention and power. Because we're talking about people (those who work and control tech, not technology itself), intention matters. People are much more willing to forgive unintended consequences knowing it's impossible to predict the future, provided those who built in had genuinely positive intentions, AND are willing to change course to try to further human happiness when things don't go as planned. And power matters. The frustration also comes from the immense power wielded by what many perceive as a monopolistic industry, coupled with those dubious intentions.
I love this line. "The purpose of technology is not to be used, but to increase the potential for happiness." However, using a technology is what may eventually lead to that technology or other techs on top of it to create happiness in the appropriate sectors. Great article.
Achievement unlocked: provoke a blogger with comments until he writes an entire column about it. :-)
Thank you. I deeply appreciate -- as always -- the humanity and humility you bring to this role. It makes me optimistic!
I have many other thought, but I will save them for later. In the meantime, if anyone is curious about whether it is even possible to design technology to maximize “meaning” I encourage you to check out Joe Edelman’s philosophical and technical work at the School for Social Design https://humsys.substack.com/
I think there is a lot of technological innovation that happens outside of Silicon Valley as well. Silicon Valley has become great at creating problems and then creating toolkits with more tools to create problems and growing these entities into multi billion dollar businesses. Also, the high technology or information technology sector only represents 10% of U.S. national GDP so it comes in around $1.9 Trillion annually and that is not a small part of the economy but nonetheless a part of a broader economy. Increasingly venture capitalist are reaching into emerging markets. You can reach these toolkits from anywhere there is internet connection.
Not basic enough, people are unhappy with venture capital for the same reason the jackal is unhappy with the lion that has just brought down a big kill--- go back a few million years to research human happiness.
I just wrote about this a few months ago but you did a WAY better job. Totally agree with it, Monkey Brain used to reward us for escaping the tiger chasing us, now it doesn’t quite know what to do, and gives us the happy accomplishment chemical for getting lots of kills in CoD..
I think one area that you're not addressing enough is the difference between the benefits of technology at large vs the personal enrichment that a smaller and smaller group of people benefit from. This is a trend that is only accelerating and I think that when people look at the distribution of technology wealth it gets conflated with the broader benefits of the underlying technology.
People hate the VCs because VCs optimize for their own wealth most often at the expense of the majority. There could be alternatives to VCs directing what technologies get developed that would be much more optimizing for happiness for many more people. A good view of this was the recent post by Cory Doctorow "Gig Work Is the Opposite of Steampunk" https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/20/love-the-machine/#hate-the-factory