Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 295 posts

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#181

Post by robax »

crwalker wrote: post #72
natalyarostova wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the most dogmatic pacifists in the US still maintain that the US entering WWII was the wrong choice. Yet the US literally incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through carpet fire-bombings. Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war. Whether nuclear weapons and targeted drone strikes made the world in some broad strokes more peaceful on purpose, well, probably not. Nonetheless, we…

> Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war. Deaths in armed conflict form a fat-tailed distribution. Extreme events dominate, and the absence of any world wars for several decades is not evidence that humanity has gotten more peaceful if world wars happen roughly every couple hundred years. See Taleb, who is much more clear. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf

Yuval Noah Harari has a different argument in his book Sapiens. He says that we’re living in the most peaceful period of human existence ever and it’s caused by a few factors. #1 the stakes are too high because of nuclear weapons and #2 now more than ever a country’s resources are the brains of its inhabitants, which can’t exactly be conquered.

I think we’re definitely seeing the landscape of war changing. I really hope traditional bloody war is obsolete.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#182

Post by srtjstjsj »

darawk wrote: post #162
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisions…

> I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisio…

All those child terrorists?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#183

Post by vladTheInhaler »

ucaetano wrote: post #131
andrepd wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing".

> Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing". Indeed, but those courses aren't always available, and war will happen in the way war happens. If not, your argument isn't about drones, it is about pacifism. That's like saying "I'll magically lift everyone out of the way" in the trolley problem. Sure, it is a nice thought, but it is not an answer to the question. I'll ask aga…

Taking issue with the problem statement isn't the same as running away from the question. You're presenting a false dichotomy.

In some imaginary world where you are somehow being compelled to chose between a button that says "Drone Strike" and one that says "Carpet Bombing", obviously "Drone Strike" is the correct option. But, equally obviously, that is a terrible model for reality. In reality, the decision maker always has the option to not kill anybody at that time. Yes, always. There might be other consequences for that choice, but admitting that it exists isn't pacifism, it's just common sense.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#184

Post by sjg007 »

andrepd wrote: post #122
dumbfoundded wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true at all. Your thinking is dangerously wrong. If you feel that these companies like Google are in it to make humanity better, you really need a better understanding of people. Google, Exon Mobile, Phillip Morris, and every other public company work in virtually the same way. They maximize profit. If you work at one of these companies and you don't help the company make more money, see how long you keep…

An extremely lucid and concise comment. You are spot on, especially when it comes to how corporations have pushed to erode and corrupt the allegedly "democratic" government institutions.

One reason of many as to why we need campaign finance reform.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#185

Post by srtjstjsj »

babuskov wrote: post #152
ucaetano wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people The world is complicated, and things are never as simple as that. Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? It is always too easy to ignore the world as it is and focus on a utopian case. War will happen, with whatever tools are available.

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Weren't drones used to carefully select targets inside cities and other areas with civilians. I'm not sure carpet bombing is an alternative for those cases: "Carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians is considered a war crime[5] as of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Convent…

That's irrelevant. There is no world police to stop the US from carpet bombing, nor would the US tolerate drone strikes against the USA as somehow acceptable.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#186

Post by WhompingWindows »

lordnacho wrote: post #118

I disagree. Technology is the very solution to our problems, the driver of social change. Why? Because our social instincts don't change terribly fast, being coded in DNA. Our hardware/OS is more or less what it was when the last ice age ended. Nobody has extra arms or hearts. People still use "look each other in the eye" and other old school tropes to decide if they are comfortable with a new person. The only thing…

"the only way to solve our social problems to think of "better" ways to use the planet?"

I am skeptical. What if instead of designing new tools and new ways of exploiting natural resources, we also shifted our cultural mores and practices to encourage more efficiency and less waste? New shiny tools are great, but there's something to be said for maintaining what's already laid down and properly utilizing what's already available.

There is a book on this dichotomy of environmentalists vs technologists, and how one group advocates efficiency/conservation and the other advocates innovation/change. I think both schools of thought are needed to move forward to the best outcome, wouldn't you agree?

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#187

Post by srtjstjsj »

knieveltech wrote: post #88
make3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a progressive, but there is no peace without being ready for war. I just hope we don't find out too late, and China has much better smart weaponry

Quick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?

China is a totalitarian state that is not accountable to the people of its economy.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#188

Post by srtjstjsj »

craftyguy wrote: post #96
defterGoose wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's quite difficult to think of a beneficial application of the atomic bomb, and thus, very difficult to justify its invention from a moral/valued standpoint." Large, efficient explosives in space is an obvious one. We will need to crack open asteroids to mine them or blow one up so it doesn't collide with something eventually. I hope.

> blow one up so it doesn't collide with something eventually. The one thing worse than a large asteroid heading for you is dozens of medium-sized ones and thousands of small ones all heading for you.

That's simply not true.

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#189

Post by srtjstjsj »

jbob2000 wrote: post #92
voidhorse wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're certainly correct that the major problem is social, economic, and structural, but I do think there are some technologies that are inherently tricky to justify regardless of the economic structures they arise in. The atomic bomb is one obvious example of a technology that seems to be inherently bad not only for humanity, but for biological life itself. You could argue that the problem of the bomb is more-so a p…

Arguably, the dropping of the atomic bombs saved more lives in the long run by forcing the Japanese to surrender and end the war, full-stop. And arguably, nuclear weapons are keeping the world at peace. Sure, everyone has them pointed at each other, but it’s that threat that keeps us honest and peaceful. Just like how drivers in Chicago are courteous and never honk their horn - you’ll get shot if you drive like a dic…

Strange example. Chicago is famous for its rude drivers and honking. http://chicagoist.com/2009/11/27/ask_chicagoist_whats_up_wit...

Re: Sundar Pichai: ‘Technology Doesn’t Solve Humanity’s Problems’

#190

Post by nsalkmaar »

3131s wrote: post #76
ucaetano wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people The world is complicated, and things are never as simple as that. Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? It is always too easy to ignore the world as it is and focus on a utopian case. War will happen, with whatever tools are available.

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? Typical apologetics. It actually is quite simple, it all comes down to money like most everything else. The American government let 9/11 happen (there is ample evidence of that, in case you don't know) so that American companies could profiteer off of the ensuing conflict and so that the American government could further its strat…

Technology here on HN is designed to discourage stating such obvious things. Talking about this discouragement is not productive. You get that X is cool echo chamber. Tech has great potential to do good but first people have to want to use it like that.
Post reply on HN