21–29 of 29 posts
My one line response. I am a crazy person and I push the human race forward. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzimTThnPM
All of the people in that ad were intensely self-critical and none of them changed the world by building apps.
My one line response. I am a crazy person and I push the human race forward. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzimTThnPM
All of the people in that ad were intensely self-critical and none of them changed the world by building apps.
Amen. Actually, if you start thinking you are better, note that a good proportion of the world's villains thought they were somehow better.
Author: Jordan Koschei Designer, developer, writer, founder. Follower of Christ. You can follow him on Twitter here.
No, I'm not implying religious belief means that the OP is dumb. I'm saying that Christ-centered theology argues for a fallen world based on immutable characteristics of mankind's nature. Given this, I can see why the OP is inclined to think that no real change will come from "your app" or any other man-made thing.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this: Author: Jordan Koschei Designer, developer, writer, founder. Follower of Christ. You can follow him on Twitter here. No, I'm not implying religious belief means that the OP is dumb. I'm saying that Christ-centered theology argues for a fallen world based on immutable characteristics of mankind's nature. Given this, I can see why the OP is inclined to think that no real change…
A common principle in Christianity is that the world is broken beyond repair. Generalised from the principle that everyone is a sinner.
That's why signing up for redemption is such a Big Deal. Either you are on the Christ bus or you're stuffed.
(The exact reasoning varies from church to church, sometimes a lot).
It might or might not be relevant, though. The linked article actually (sorta[1]) suffers from another common problem, which is that the world is a rational machine that can be "fixed" with a few architectural changes. It's very common for intelligent people to think that way.
Complex systems don't work that way. In fact, the best we can do is intelligent trial and error. Treating people as a physics problem or an architecture assignment tends to end in tears.
[1] Another way to look at is that the author has restated the old observation that technological solutions can't solve social problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the people in that ad were intensely self-critical and none of them changed the world by building apps.
Your wrong. Richard Branson first business was an App. An App for selling Audio Records in 1970.
The world is unlikely to be saved through technological or governmental machinery. If it is to be saved it will be through the revolutionary actions of neighbors helping neighbors, in opposition to our technology-induced, and urbanization-induced, isolation.
I don't consider it to be the end of it. I doubt most people here do either. In that sense, i find the article (and many others like it) to be quite short sighted.
a) Many types of major improvements in society and life in general aren't happening because they would require change in human nature;
b) Human nature has a tendency to not change, because it's innate to human sapiens and actions like educating "what could be best", moral "brainwashing" etc have only limited effect;
Then you still don't need to conclude that "world will not change" - it suggests an argument that you may need to change homo sapiens to make the world better. There are tech fields that have potential to change that in the near future, such as biochemistry (mind altering drugs); AI research; and genetic engineering [of humans].
These directions do seem disturbing, but that alone won't prevent them from happening. I mean, gulags and genocide are also disturbing but they happen anyway all over the world every decade. So ignoring ways to change homo sapiens won't help, but we have to discuss on how to manage it so that the result is morally/socially good.