Is there really a point to rampant, non-stop technological advancements if the common people never really get to see the benefits of it? It seems like life just keeps getting harder and harder for the lower classes.
But they do get to see them, they usually just don't notice them. Almost everyone in the developed world has a supercomputer in their pocket that acts as a flashlight and a video camera as well! Modern cars are far safer than old cars. They're faster than horses too. A modern combine harvester does the work of many people, which makes food much cheaper.
There are untold small and big improvements like that that we just take for granted. GDP per capita roughly doubles in 20 years. That's the combination of all of these small and big improvements added up on a societal scale. Before industrialization it could take over 1000 years to see a similar level of improvement in the life of an average person.
My grandparents had no running water. They would wash in a sauna with water from a pond or well. Famines were common at that time. People still mostly used horses for transport. Roads were not paved. Clothing was mostly self-made. Televisions didn't even exist yet. Radios were for well-off families. Compare that to today in a developed country.
This rampant non-stop technological advancement is what's making life better. It's just hard to notice if you don't think about it.
You caan't live in a video game. You cannot eat an iPhone. Maslow's Hierarchy still rests on its base, and tens of millions within the US and billions worldwide live precarious existences.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is far from the problem in the US. Many millions might end up being evicted but the vast majority of them will end up finding other accommodations. There's a lot of housing available in the US. It's just not cheap in the places people want to be.
Maslow's hierarchy, a friend pointed out a few years back, is best considered not merely as a set of essential and nourishing goods and services, but security in those elements. The hand that offers whilst threatening, withdrawing, or threatening is not nurturing but the definition of abuse and trauma.
Living on a knife's edge, at all times, is not tenable.
Every year, 'Luddite' becomes less of a pejorative in my head, and I catch myself thinking maybe the Amish aren't being that unreasonable (except how to I get antibiotics, vaccines and bone grafts without also getting Twitter and online gambling?).
Based on the sorts of 'unplugging' trends that get picked up with some regularity, I'm not unique in this experience.
There is so much that's really cool in tech, but that feeling of discovery and wonder is a dopamine high. The junk food of happiness. It doesn't sustain, so you either have to let it go at some point, or get stuck in a loop of novelty seeking that doesn't end until you're just too old and tired to keep doing it. And like any addiction, the people who don't chose abstinence feel existentially threatened by those who do, and react as if being personally attacked. Meanwhile I'm sort of stuck in the middle because I don't think either works as well as moderation, which both sides hate because 'you people' won't pick a side. Novelty should be novel.
I keep waiting for the West to repeat the experiments of the '60s, complete with zen monasteries (now with 85% less sexual harassment!) and Hare Krishna robes everywhere.
At the risk of quoting a pervert: Everything is awesome and nobody is happy.
Wow, I think totally the opposite: I'm as anti-communist as they come, but even I recognize that if we as a civilization keep going down the path we're going down, there's going to come a day when there's no more useful work for humans to do. When we get to that point (but not before, you silly Antifas), we'll have to completely reimagine how people spend their days.
