Hacker News Reader

What they're saying here:

Some tech can be directionally utopian and some not. Various technologies lead us in various paths along the gradient of utility. Some tech is actively dystopian, when put in the context of social psychology. Tech is inherently meaningless - its usage in the real world by real societies defines its effect.

Tech's overall effect on utopia is based on our collective ability to predict and responsibly use it. That ability may not scale.

View on HN

I think a lot of people are reading this as "technology is bad" which is totally off base. I very much agree with your sentiment- technology is obviously very useful and I literally owe it my life from my first breath (emergency c-section), but it is only as just and good as is allowed by its distribution and implementation. It's like saying "hammers are not inherently utopian"- of course they aren't, but they are damn useful. It's an important insight, and I always feel concerned when it sparks so much controversy.

I thought it was put in a way that was pretty straightforward and uncontroversial:

To blindly reject technology is to reject an aspect of our humanity. To blindly embrace technology is similarly misguided. We should approach technology in the same way we approach any other human system: by evaluating how it supports or undermines individual well-being.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com