I also have this thought but then I think that that’s a reactionary take and the true take is that phones are awesome and it’s addictive social media that’s bad
There’s a big conflation, but I think phones are bad in the same way I think the luddites were right -
I’m not saying phones inherently suck, I’m saying they’re so widely employed in a way that worsens peoples’ lives that we would all be collectively happier if they simply didn’t exist.
This is the correct take. Technology is not inherently bad, it is the way that it is implemented and handed by capitalism that is bad.
I liken it to food. Food isn’t bad, but if society made it so that the only thing available and socially acceptable to eat was McDonalds, you’re going to get sick.
A little nuance though, some technology does lend itself to more good or more ill. Like a combine harvestor can cause harm if the technology is used to prop up an exploitative empire and jealously guarded, but it’s much easier for a nuclear bomb to cause harm.
I’ve seen some reductionism taking your reasonable point (tech isn’t inherently one or the other) to mean the stronger and imho worse position “technology is morally neutral”.
Personaly I think smartphone are tech to be cautious around because while remote communication is obviously incredible, bundling it with general purpose computing comes with a lot of hazard. We ought to be able to heavily curtail the harm though by removing incentives for addictive design.
I also have this thought but then I think that that’s a reactionary take and the true take is that phones are awesome and it’s addictive social media that’s bad
There’s a big conflation, but I think phones are bad in the same way I think the luddites were right -
I’m not saying phones inherently suck, I’m saying they’re so widely employed in a way that worsens peoples’ lives that we would all be collectively happier if they simply didn’t exist.
This is the correct take. Technology is not inherently bad, it is the way that it is implemented and handed by capitalism that is bad.
I liken it to food. Food isn’t bad, but if society made it so that the only thing available and socially acceptable to eat was McDonalds, you’re going to get sick.
congrats, youre a luddite
Thank you!
A little nuance though, some technology does lend itself to more good or more ill. Like a combine harvestor can cause harm if the technology is used to prop up an exploitative empire and jealously guarded, but it’s much easier for a nuclear bomb to cause harm.
I’ve seen some reductionism taking your reasonable point (tech isn’t inherently one or the other) to mean the stronger and imho worse position “technology is morally neutral”.
Personaly I think smartphone are tech to be cautious around because while remote communication is obviously incredible, bundling it with general purpose computing comes with a lot of hazard. We ought to be able to heavily curtail the harm though by removing incentives for addictive design.
Absolutely, I agree 100%