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

A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

ursulakleguin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#61

Post by airstrafer »

> Technology is the active human interface with the material world.

> But the word is consistently misused to mean only the enormously complex and specialised technologies of the past few decades, supported by massive exploitation both of natural and human resources.

This sentiment reminds me of the email steve jobs sent himself shortly before he died:

> I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow I did not breed or perfect the seeds.

> I do not make any of my own clothing.

> I speak a language I did not invent or refine.

> I did not discover the mathematics I use.

> I am protected by freedoms and laws I did not conceive of or legislate, and do not enforce or adjudicate.

> I am moved by music I did not create myself.

> When I needed medical attention, I was helpless to help myself survive.

> I did not invent the transistor, the microprocessor, object oriented programming, or most of the technology I work with.

> I love and admire my species, living and dead, and am totally dependent on them for my life and well being.

Indeed, it seems to me that true technologists do not take for granted a book of matches, or a simple garment, or music, or law. Innovation is innovation

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#62

Post by dwedge »

airstrafer wrote: post #61

> Technology is the active human interface with the material world. > But the word is consistently misused to mean only the enormously complex and specialised technologies of the past few decades, supported by massive exploitation both of natural and human resources. This sentiment reminds me of the email steve jobs sent himself shortly before he died: > I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow I…

> When I needed medical attention, I was helpless to help myself survive.

This is really poignant considering that he tried to handle this himself and refused conventional treatment for months - likely causing his death. It's interesting that he doesn't seem aware of this even afterwards, but it's probably for the best.

I guess the whole letter explains a personal crisis and probably explains why he did what he did. Is there any more writing from him on the subject?

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#63

Post by analog31 »

xg15 wrote: post #36
hungryhobbit wrote: post #9

Le Guin is a master of fiction, period. While she's very different from modern sci-fi/fantasy, her work is almost as foundational as Tolkien, Lewis, or Asimov. Take her Earthsea series (which was very loosely adapted as a Studio Ghibli movie). It's much slower paced than modern fantasy. Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here), and it almost reads more like an extended fairy tale. But when you start reading it you c…

> Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here) Can I make a side-rant how since Game of Thrones, it seems to have become an expectation that characters must be killed off? Apparently readers are (expected to) be so desensitized that nothing below "the main party that is the main reason you're reading this story can die at any moment" registers anymore. In fact, even that is just the bare minimum. To really make an impac…

Contracts are shorter now. ;-)

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#64

Post by watwut »

xg15 wrote: post #60
watwut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is backslash against years and years of shows where you are 100% certain characters will be unharmed. Cumulatively, shows lost tension for many of us - there were no stakes whatsoever. You have massive fight, but there is no excitement about the fight, because it is basically just an elaborate dance part. There are good and bad and good must always win and if bad thing happening is always punishment for moral fail…

Yeah, that was basically the Disney/Spielberg formula, which got overdone. > There are good and bad and good must always win and if bad thing happening is always punishment for moral failure forced formula got overfed. I mean, maybe there are different moral horizons behind this. I would expect some basic "doing good is in the end more successful than doing evil" morality in shows. The alternate message seems to be a…

> I would expect some basic "doing good is in the end more successful than doing evil" morality in shows.

I dont and find it annoying when it is there all the time. It removes the tension too. Good people end up poor or die of cancer, attempts to save climate or prevent wars failed, those who fight fascism find themselves maligned and out of power.

> The alternate message seems to be an uncaring universe where it plays absolutely no role if you're an asshole or try to help people, because deaths happen randomly anyway.

That is how the real universe works, why should we insist on repetitive message that is not true?

On the positive side, real people dont help people just to get something in exchange. Real people dont avoid being asshole only for transactional reasons. They do that, because of who you want to be and because of being able to resist the temptation.

And the danger is that when people believe the above, they make the opposite implication - if you had success you must have been good. That is not true. In fact, being willing to lie or take advantage of people makes you more likely to be successful - you have more options at your disposal then honest people.

> It is not about message.

I do not really think shows were that influential. But, large part of harm is from people simply assuming that once someone is a winner and billionaire, they must have been good and moral and right the whole time. I dont believe in prosperity gospel.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#65

Post by gghackernewsgg »

airstrafer wrote: post #61

> Technology is the active human interface with the material world. > But the word is consistently misused to mean only the enormously complex and specialised technologies of the past few decades, supported by massive exploitation both of natural and human resources. This sentiment reminds me of the email steve jobs sent himself shortly before he died: > I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow I…

I mean no disrespect to Jobs or technologists, but for some reason the quote reads to me like a deliberate attempt at finding something to be grateful for, as opposed to a genuine expression of gratitude. I think it's because of this part:

"I love and admire my species, living and dead, and am totally dependent on them for my life and well being."

It feels forced. Like the author is trying to convince himself of that belief.

I'm always suspicious when I see these. Does the person genuinely feel grateful, or are they simulating a gratitude that they cannot feel?

Makes me question their emotional sincerity.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#66

Post by airstrafer »

dwedge wrote: post #62
airstrafer wrote: post #61

> Technology is the active human interface with the material world. > But the word is consistently misused to mean only the enormously complex and specialised technologies of the past few decades, supported by massive exploitation both of natural and human resources. This sentiment reminds me of the email steve jobs sent himself shortly before he died: > I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow I…

> When I needed medical attention, I was helpless to help myself survive. This is really poignant considering that he tried to handle this himself and refused conventional treatment for months - likely causing his death. It's interesting that he doesn't seem aware of this even afterwards, but it's probably for the best. I guess the whole letter explains a personal crisis and probably explains why he did what he did.…

He said something similar when he was 28 at a design conference: https://youtu.be/t9HmOz8H0qI?t=2827 at 47:08

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#67

Post by polotics »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #9

Le Guin is a master of fiction, period. While she's very different from modern sci-fi/fantasy, her work is almost as foundational as Tolkien, Lewis, or Asimov. Take her Earthsea series (which was very loosely adapted as a Studio Ghibli movie). It's much slower paced than modern fantasy. Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here), and it almost reads more like an extended fairy tale. But when you start reading it you c…

That "loosely" hides a bit of a tragedy on the Studio Ghibli adaptation: instead of accepting the transcendent Hayao Miyazaki work that she and we all deserved, she refused what she misunderstood would be a Disney-like cartoon...

And instead of this, much later, the not-at-all ready son, Goro Miyazaki, had a go without having done the massive thought-work that you can for example glimpse Hayao doing on the emotional arc of Ponyo

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#68

Post by WA »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #9

Le Guin is a master of fiction, period. While she's very different from modern sci-fi/fantasy, her work is almost as foundational as Tolkien, Lewis, or Asimov. Take her Earthsea series (which was very loosely adapted as a Studio Ghibli movie). It's much slower paced than modern fantasy. Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here), and it almost reads more like an extended fairy tale. But when you start reading it you c…

I beg to differ. Earthsea is a good example of "tell, don’t show". It goes on and on with explaining things that happen without the showing part. It’s outright boring.

It might have been inspirational decades ago. Now, it reads dated. Tastes are different, but I’d not call it well-crafted at all.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#69

Post by vintagedave »

xg15 wrote: post #36
hungryhobbit wrote: post #9

Le Guin is a master of fiction, period. While she's very different from modern sci-fi/fantasy, her work is almost as foundational as Tolkien, Lewis, or Asimov. Take her Earthsea series (which was very loosely adapted as a Studio Ghibli movie). It's much slower paced than modern fantasy. Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here), and it almost reads more like an extended fairy tale. But when you start reading it you c…

> Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here) Can I make a side-rant how since Game of Thrones, it seems to have become an expectation that characters must be killed off? Apparently readers are (expected to) be so desensitized that nothing below "the main party that is the main reason you're reading this story can die at any moment" registers anymore. In fact, even that is just the bare minimum. To really make an impac…

I found the essay quote,

> We have been so desensitized by a hundred and fifty years of ceaselessly expanding technical prowess that we think nothing less complex and showy than a computer or a jet bomber deserves to be called “technology” at all.

remarkable given the similarity in your comment yet that it was about something completely different: violence vs technology.

Re: A Rant About “Technology” (2005)

#70

Post by NeutralCrane »

ModernMech wrote: post #41
xg15 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Barely anyone dies (no Red Weddings here) Can I make a side-rant how since Game of Thrones, it seems to have become an expectation that characters must be killed off? Apparently readers are (expected to) be so desensitized that nothing below "the main party that is the main reason you're reading this story can die at any moment" registers anymore. In fact, even that is just the bare minimum. To really make an impac…

I think that all started with The Walking Dead

I could be misremembering but the Walking Dead season 1 and Game of Thrones season 1 came out around the same time, but didn’t really kill of any major characters until after the first season.

Both are based on pre-existing material but GoT source material predates the Walking Dead by 7 years.

Post reply on HN