It really feels like tech is becoming a net negative for humanity, and the way to fix that is not more tech.

@GeoffWozniak "Tech" has come to signify a kind of business product that is separate from "technology" as a natural process of humans reconditioning their environment toward better meeting their needs.

The logic of "tech" sees the production of new technologies as necessary and inevitable, and from the point of view of its own survival as an industry this is true -- where tech to stop producing new tech (which also involves creating new *problems* to apply tech to as a solution) then it would cease to exist as a self-sustaining entity.

This becomes a problem because the products produced by "tech" *are* in fact technologies -- which by their nature act to condition and recondition the human experience. That means tech must necessarily create an accelerating cycle of transmogrifying the human condition due to the logics of capitalism and increasing returns.

This positive feedback loop of change for change's sake is unstable and demonstrably harmful as a social system dynamic. This is of course an inherently conservative argument, not really in the sense of US political conservatives, but more of a conservationist stance.

@vortex_egg To me, "tech" means the business end of the technology world. For the past few years I describe it as, "I love technology but I hate tech".

@GeoffWozniak Have you read the Unabomber's Manifesto? Ted was onto something there. I'm born & raised one of the technocrats he was opposed to, but I see his side's point.

He bombed a lot of the wrong people, tho. Should've been more tech CEOs, and pork-barrel and anti-nature politicians, less professors.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A bunch of technomancers in the fediverse. Keep it fairly clean please. This arcology is for all who wash up upon it's digital shore.