I miss being naive and thinking “technology will save us”. But technology advancement without social progress only leads to the entrenchment of unjust systems.
All those tech and infrastructure sectors will improve, but whatever possible quality of life improvement will be compensated by worse socioeconomic divide.
I’m tempted to tell about a science fiction book where that happens (not with gold asteroids but other tech) I’m currently writing that chapter, although the metaphor in my version is more obvious: Its a generation oNeil cylinder in a multicentury journey, originally set as a solarpunk utopia, it has degraded after a century and now they have heavy industries sapping energy that was meant for lighting and heating. That results in regular frosts and the poor struggling while those who can afford it can get electric heating (sapping more energy). The individualistic solution works for an individual but makes things worse for all and only benefits those wealthy who live in another part of the cylinder that’s unaffected by the energy drain.
I take your point that tech advancement without social progress can go awry. Automation replacing jobs at too rapid a pace feels like a very real threat to me right now. Maybe I’m biased by the last century where tech either lessened inequality or at least raised the standard of living for everyone, even if disproportionately applied across the population.
But yeah since tech advancement is accelerating, it seems more likely society will be unable to keep up.
it’s insane, how automation is a threat. under and sane society it’ll be seen as a good thing. why do those things if we don’t have to… wait, we set up our entire civilization so individual productivity is tied to your inherent right to life? WHY TF DID WE DO THAT??? just so the most unproductive people can cheat the system and live like gods.
I haven’t decided yet where I am on the spectrum between “zero obligation to work = utopia” and “humans need to have something to do”. But you made me chuckle sardonically at the realization that people living off dividends and interest are functionally the same as a welfare queen.
I miss being naive and thinking “technology will save us”. But technology advancement without social progress only leads to the entrenchment of unjust systems.
All those tech and infrastructure sectors will improve, but whatever possible quality of life improvement will be compensated by worse socioeconomic divide.
I’m tempted to tell about a science fiction book where that happens (not with gold asteroids but other tech) I’m currently writing that chapter, although the metaphor in my version is more obvious: Its a generation oNeil cylinder in a multicentury journey, originally set as a solarpunk utopia, it has degraded after a century and now they have heavy industries sapping energy that was meant for lighting and heating. That results in regular frosts and the poor struggling while those who can afford it can get electric heating (sapping more energy). The individualistic solution works for an individual but makes things worse for all and only benefits those wealthy who live in another part of the cylinder that’s unaffected by the energy drain.
I take your point that tech advancement without social progress can go awry. Automation replacing jobs at too rapid a pace feels like a very real threat to me right now. Maybe I’m biased by the last century where tech either lessened inequality or at least raised the standard of living for everyone, even if disproportionately applied across the population.
But yeah since tech advancement is accelerating, it seems more likely society will be unable to keep up.
it’s insane, how automation is a threat. under and sane society it’ll be seen as a good thing. why do those things if we don’t have to… wait, we set up our entire civilization so individual productivity is tied to your inherent right to life? WHY TF DID WE DO THAT??? just so the most unproductive people can cheat the system and live like gods.
I haven’t decided yet where I am on the spectrum between “zero obligation to work = utopia” and “humans need to have something to do”. But you made me chuckle sardonically at the realization that people living off dividends and interest are functionally the same as a welfare queen.
that’s what the “economy” means in politics.
whenever they say who’s good for the economy, or what they’ll do for the economy.
they are saying to the dividend elite that they’ll sacrifice the public welfare for the rich people’s welfare.
that’s why they want “number go up” and don’t care about the public