Don’t disagree, but I don’t think you really need new technology if you have good street and building design. And all the tech in the world can’t make up for bad urban design.
Weirdly shallow take Andy... I think you've misunderstood the way they are using the word "tech". Those writers are not talking about the concept of technology, but the tech industry... It's probably worth pointing out your OG-techbro Guttenberg effectively died bankrupt, having run a 'printing' business, not an 'intellectual property ownership' business.
Andy - methinks the bit of nuance here is to be a fan of technological progress that humans willingly adopt (which is a mark of human progress, and has given us nearly all of what we enjoy over the last 100+ years), vs. tech or progress that is essentially forced upon people from the top down. Whether public sector or corporate cronyism, the push to force new tech before we have worked out the kinks over time is what has caused a lot of our issues. For example, we massively destroyed our cities in favor of cars - not because of the car - but because policy and $$ forced that change quickly and decisively. We didn't allow human societies to gradually work out how to live best with cars. The tech itself (the car) is actually a wonderful and amazing advancement. The policy response is what has left us with all the negative consequences. I think from an "urbanist" standpoint, what I fear most is the dramatic policy response to emerging technologies.
Criticism of leaders that choose to invest public $$ in expensive, unproven solutions (e.g. underground tunnels for cars in Las Vegas) at the expense of inexpensive, proven solutions (e.g. frequently running buses and trains), does not make me a Luddite, and I resent the implication. See also, Autonorama by Peter Norton (2021).
My favourite tweet ever was Taras Grescoe's from 2012: "The real future of the city is 21st century communications (smartphone, apps, twitter, texts) and 19th century transport (subways, streetcars, bikes)" I still believe he is generally correct; we don't need or want autonomous cars or Elon's tunnels (or elon's twitter but that's another story)
It’s not so much an “even if a few people profit handsomely” but that profit seems to be the goal of emerging technologies of the present. Only those who can afforded them will benefit from them. The move fast break things spirit leaves folks behind then blames them for being left in the digital dust of technological advancement.
I think of the Bill Hicks bit from the first Iraq war in which he posits military technology could be used to feed hungry people around the world. The technology is not developed in vacuum and it would seem as the military industries complex has mutated in the new century it’s only after those maintaining their power have been served that the rest of the population might benefit.
Don’t disagree, but I don’t think you really need new technology if you have good street and building design. And all the tech in the world can’t make up for bad urban design.
Weirdly shallow take Andy... I think you've misunderstood the way they are using the word "tech". Those writers are not talking about the concept of technology, but the tech industry... It's probably worth pointing out your OG-techbro Guttenberg effectively died bankrupt, having run a 'printing' business, not an 'intellectual property ownership' business.
Andy - methinks the bit of nuance here is to be a fan of technological progress that humans willingly adopt (which is a mark of human progress, and has given us nearly all of what we enjoy over the last 100+ years), vs. tech or progress that is essentially forced upon people from the top down. Whether public sector or corporate cronyism, the push to force new tech before we have worked out the kinks over time is what has caused a lot of our issues. For example, we massively destroyed our cities in favor of cars - not because of the car - but because policy and $$ forced that change quickly and decisively. We didn't allow human societies to gradually work out how to live best with cars. The tech itself (the car) is actually a wonderful and amazing advancement. The policy response is what has left us with all the negative consequences. I think from an "urbanist" standpoint, what I fear most is the dramatic policy response to emerging technologies.
Criticism of leaders that choose to invest public $$ in expensive, unproven solutions (e.g. underground tunnels for cars in Las Vegas) at the expense of inexpensive, proven solutions (e.g. frequently running buses and trains), does not make me a Luddite, and I resent the implication. See also, Autonorama by Peter Norton (2021).
My favourite tweet ever was Taras Grescoe's from 2012: "The real future of the city is 21st century communications (smartphone, apps, twitter, texts) and 19th century transport (subways, streetcars, bikes)" I still believe he is generally correct; we don't need or want autonomous cars or Elon's tunnels (or elon's twitter but that's another story)
It’s not so much an “even if a few people profit handsomely” but that profit seems to be the goal of emerging technologies of the present. Only those who can afforded them will benefit from them. The move fast break things spirit leaves folks behind then blames them for being left in the digital dust of technological advancement.
I think of the Bill Hicks bit from the first Iraq war in which he posits military technology could be used to feed hungry people around the world. The technology is not developed in vacuum and it would seem as the military industries complex has mutated in the new century it’s only after those maintaining their power have been served that the rest of the population might benefit.
Ps. I don’t think Gutenberg as a tech bro