(2020-12-08) Troynikov The Purpose Of Technology Is Human Flourishing

Anton Troynikov: The Purpose of Technology is Human Flourishing. The purpose of technological progress is embedded deeply in the human spirit and is born of the same kiln as the purpose of art: Creation of something that has never before existed; learn things about the world nobody has ever known before.

In "The Purpose of Technology" Balaji Srinivasan argues that though continued technological progress is necessary for the material improvement of life for people around the world, mainstream culture is becoming increasingly cynical that this is possible

Responding to “The Purpose of Technology” directly has allowed me to clarify my own thinking further. We agree on the urgency and nature of the problem, we agree on the magnitude if not the character of the stakes, but we differ on how we got here and what to do next.

Srinivasan uncompromisingly states two purposes for technological (and presumably scientific) progress; proximally to reduce scarcity and ultimately to eliminate mortality.

These are high stakes, worthy of mobilization. They are also not sufficient to mobilize the culture because they are material and not for want of better words, spiritual or ideological.

As technologists we have too long been unclear on what our ideology is, what the real humanistic (rather than material) purpose of technological progress is.

The purpose of technological progress is embedded deeply in the human spirit and is born of the same kiln as the purpose of art: Creation of something that has never before existed; learn things about the world nobody has ever known before.

Yes, this ideology results in improving everyone’s material circumstances, but these material improvements are downstream

The mainstream culture does not ask for a purpose for the artist; it is self evident that art is a human act. We must strive to be regarded by the culture in the same way. Then we will have the mobilization that Srinivasan seeks.

His model is the creation of a parallel media ecosystem focused on promoting the material boons that are the downstream products of technical progress.

Srinivasan states that technologists have not taken the duty of evangelizing technological progress seriously.

Without a strong and full-throated ideological foundation based on humanistic principles, that which is felt deep in the soul, there can be no duty.

Our culture's view of technological progress can no longer be about what one can or cannot buy.

technical progress came to be seen as a tool primarily for making money. (frenzy phase)

There are very many ways to make money, many of the most lucrative of which our culture finds distasteful if not outright immoral.

The tech ecosystem Srinivasan calls on is deeply entwined with the mechanisms of capital reproduction. That’s what mainstream culture is reacting to. That’s how we went from scrappy idealistic hackers to snotty rich kids in the popular mind.

Which way forward, if you really believe?

Srinivasan presents a vision of a parallel media ecosystem.

This is in my opinion a mistake. We cannot afford to exit.

It will take a decentralized, sustained, broad, and ultimately culturally relevant effort by people speaking the language of the mainstream - not wrapped up in the capital-captured language of the tech startup, or the musty technical drone of academic philosopy - to reach people.