I don't want innovations which improve my shopping experience or make smartphones a tiny bit better, I want innovations which eliminate world hunger, innovations which make it so people have more free time, innovations which help humans live in harmony with our ecosystem.
If you're a middle class westerner technology is already at a point where they're not going to be coming out with any new inventions that make your life significantly better. But there's a massive amount of room for innovation that can make life much better for people as a whole.
In terms of societal transformation technology still has the ability to radically improve the quality of human life. In terms of rugged individualism technology is just going to give the wealthiest humans more of the same kinds of toys that are already failing to make them happy.
The line of technological progress which depends on individuals purchasing new inventions for themselves has long passed its point of diminishing returns, and now those returns are functionally nil. We don't really need any more inventions for individual purchase and consumption.
What we need are collective-oriented innovations which change the way humans live on this planet. And it won't look like flying cars or fancier personal widgets, it will look like advancements which change and improve our ability to get food, shelter and resources to everyone.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Mister "comedy is now legal on Twitter" banning comedians and cartoonists for making fun of him does not actually say good things about the future of free speech on Twitter.
How many yes-men must you be surrounding yourself with to think this is a reasonable thing to do?
Pretending that's the same as the owner of Twitter banning people for a viral trend poking fun at the owner of Twitter is either intensely stupid or profoundly dishonest.
The divide is not between biased journalists and unbiased journalists, it's between journalists who are honest and transparent about their biases and journalists who are not. There are no unbiased journalists. There are no unbiased people. You're either honest about this or not.
Reporters who support the mainstream worldview are just as biased as reporters from Russian or Chinese state media; they espouse a peculiar perspective and concrete interests and agendas. The problem is the mainstream worldview is so normalized it looks like impartial reality.
So you'll get mainstream western journalists speaking disdainfully of Assange or The Grayzone or whoever because those people have biases and agendas, as though they themselves have no biases or agendas and are nothing other than impartial arbiters of absolute reality.
One reason I publish poetry and share my thoughts about philosophy and spirituality on top of my political and foreign policy commentary is because as the information ecosystem gets more polluted it's not enough to tell people what you think, you've got to show them who you are.
As more and more energy goes into distorting and manipulating public understanding of the world, it becomes more necessary to bare your soul to the furthest extent possible so people can decide on their own whether you're the kind of person they want to pay attention to.
People are very distrusting in today's environment, and rightly so; we swim in an ocean of lies. You can get around that distrust by manipulating people into thinking you're trustworthy, or you can do it by taking transparency to the furthest extent possible and being fully seen.
"Those most touched by the war, namely the internally displaced, were more likely to prioritise saving lives. Other research reveals that those farthest from the battlefields have the most hawkish attitudes."
Platforms censoring hate speech and political speech is not the same. Censoring hate speech is done to benefit the platform's profit margins; censoring political speech is done to benefit powerful government agencies. You can make slippery slope arguments, but they're not equal.
There's a massive difference between a platform banning speech which makes that platform a gross place that nobody wants to hang out at and a platform banning the way people talk about a war or a virus because government agencies told them to. It's unhelpful to conflate the two.
And I'm pretty sure Musk will make meaningful changes to neither of these. He won't change hate speech censorship because he wants to make money and he won't meaningfully change political speech censorship because he's an oligarchic Pentagon contractor who is part of the empire.