Should we be worried about technology?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ส.ค. 2021
- The covid-19 pandemic has reinforced humanity’s dependence on modern tech, but the same tools that enable remote working are also being used to spread disinformation and perpetuate cybercrime. Ambivalence towards technology is nothing new.
Read more of our coverage of Science & technology: econ.st/3CdkVa5
See our Technology Quarterlies: econ.st/3jldAN6
Why is pessimism about the impact of technology nothing new? econ.st/3Cfme8B
Listen to our weekly podcast on vaccine technology: econ.st/3joucn8
Listen to our podcast “Babbage: Early warning” on future of pandemics: econ.st/2TSfgoz
Why is Israel the winner of the vaccination race? econ.st/3xoWNxu
How has covid-19 brought together biomedical technologies: econ.st/3CfpMrr
How the pandemic has accelerated existing trends of technological adoption: econ.st/3CdsZrn
How the pandemic has embraced digitalisation in medicine econ.st/3Af1VGF
Could technology help reduce CO2 emissions? econ.st/3AdTyLt
How AI is transforming creative industries: econ.st/2VqHlUJ
We Should have always been worried about our social evolution, specifically the lack of it…so many are addicted to war, conflict, and consumerism/materialism…
I agree, we need to reshape all our cultures to decrease overexploitation and inequality, and increase environmental, economic, and social sustainability. I think people are just too short-sighted and fearful of change in general.
I don't fear technology. I fear the people controlling it and creating it without input from the people who will be affected by that technology.
Yes I agree.
That is all of us unfortunately. There is bad in all of us. Humans can't handle the level of technology we have. Our minds are in the stone age but our weapons are in the nuclear age.
I find it unsettling that you're treating people's mistrust of tech as the problem that needs to be solved, rather than emphasising the various dangers with technology, like surveillance and dishonest electioneering, as problems that needs to be solved.
My exact thought watching this video. They regard this mistrust in technology in the same vein as the resistance of the Luddites. It's akin to saying that we shouldn't treat the disease, but rather, change our view of the disease.
@@Vyp3rX Historically the Luddites were proven wrong. It did take decades to adjust society starting with Teddy which broke up the big corporations and later with FDR which gave society a more social balance. We should take a lesson from history. The tech companies and rich today mirror exactly the big trusts at the time of Teddy Roosevelt. The Cold War showed us that technology could ultimately destroy us. At that time the US and USSR realized that they had have rules. But with the fall of the USSR we basically have deregulation where anyone can literally say or do anything. (An easy measure would be to repeal the immunity that social media sites enjoy that newspapers and other kinds of regular media don't have). We perhaps have too much freedom. Anyone can say anything without fear of libel or slander laws. And almost all countries except for EU don't work together.
We thought technology like this would bring us closer together and in some ways it has. I am an American posting this from my computer in Tokyo. But technology is also driving us apart, increasing nationalism and misinformation.
(Side note: I had a cousin (in Wisconsin) who posted a story about how Muslim refugees in South Africa had gotten angry and had taken over a farm when they had been taken in. I searched (still in Tokyo) the farm and found they had a website and an email address. I wrote to the farmer and he replied within an hour and said the story was false. There was a misunderstanding because of the language barrier, but he said the had sorted it all out. The refugees were happy to be there and he was happy to provide for them. I posted his email to the story. Talk about the power of technology).
Those aren't dangers as far as the Economist's donors are concerned. They're features.
@@Vyp3rX And if the Luddites had won? If we never industrialised? Study history and I think we will agree that the world would be a worse place for it. And probably still more socially inequal (feudalism vs capitalism).
Nailed it! Well said
I love the Economist, very happy with my subscription and this YT content!
@@caspar9794 It's technology.... that's why!
That is, you have more time to read and extrapolate from difference sources of information instead of "The Economist". Remember, you only have 24 hours a day, if you've shifted information sources from the Economist without losing perspectives of your own principles/ideas, then your interest with them waned.
What do you think?
I guess, as a gen Z we've never been afraid of technologies and, at some point, this whole situation is out of our minds, it's still really weird to see how one technology replaces another one or how saving the world literally means creating more devices, softwares and so on.
"Technology has no agency"
AI: hold my beer!
The Jetson's lore shows they developed that technology and elevated living because that had destroyed the surface of Earth. Not the best route.
🤣🤣
"The solution to tech-related problems often involve more or better tech."
OR self-examination of our addiction to consumption, as well as reevaluating the hubris that humans are not bound by nature. Technology is making us less connected to what it means to be human. But hey, trying to engineer our way out means greater returns to capital, eh Economist?
Best comment ever!
Im glad I'm not the only person to realize this.
What does it mean to be human, though? A defining feature of our species is our advanced usage of tools, no? In other words, our technology. Language and complex culture are a couple of other distinguishing features.
Also, humans are not bound by "nature", not in the sense that every other animal is. We defy nature every day. We are the only animals able to do things beyond what our individual biology allows. Through technology, and the collective efforts and ingenuity of every other human. Our shared knowledge allows us to fly, communicate with others anywhere in the world instantaneously, and even escape the very Earth itself.
We're just getting started. The next few decades will be unlike any other. The rate of scientific advancement continues to grow exponentially, and it is terrifying.
@@someoneelse3456 To think that human beings are defined by their linguistic, rational thoughts is a very Western perspective. We have lost appreciation for the subconscious processes that make us human: thoughts that cannot be measured, only experienced.
While we may defy nature, we are still driven by natural instincts. We get lonely, we fear death, and nevertheless we will die alone (in an existential sense). Yet how much of technology is driven by a desire to delude ourselves to think we are connected, or one day might discover immortality?
Techno optimists might say that by merging with technology, we can become more than human. My response is that machines do not have free will.
@@alexmilgroom229 Does anything have "free" will? According to science, at least, we're all just a bunch of atoms. And our thoughts are some of the interactions between groups of those atoms. Unless there is something more to us than this, free will does not exist. Even if the process underlying our thoughts are truly random, it does not make them free. Just partially random. Whether any of this is true or not is fundamentally a matter of belief.
Technology, I would argue, is driven foremost by the human instinct to improve. The well attested to human desire for more. For better. I'm sure we can agree curiosity also plays a large role.
I would also argue that the "addiction to consumption" you mentioned in your original comment is also part of "human nature". Society revolves around consumption because human lives always have, at an individual level too. A re-evaluation of such a core tenet of humanity and society would be radical, and such a seismic shift in societal attitudes would be alarming at the least. In the short term, anyway.
Maaan, these animation are insane! The Economist - you 🤘
Not technology , social media is what we should be worried about.
Exactly also disinformation and people in general often think less critically which is why stuff like echo chambers form
The corporate owned fake news media is what we should be really worried about.
Social media is part of tech
I say both technology is moving faster than regulation
Technology isn't neutral. There are some technologies more dangerous than others. As McLuhan would says : The medium is the message.
Excellent point
Cool stuff - well done Shira & journalists!
Thank you for the video and I will be sharing this with friends
It’s not misinformation but information you don’t like.
This is a great topic. HIGHLY important for us nowadays.
Very well presented. Perfecting technology must be more significant to speed of innovation. Hassle free migration of brains to countries where innovation is encouraged must be facilitated. 👍
Social media is dangerous
no, but we should definitely fear those who are today controlling technology
There's no way to decentralize that control though.
200 years from now, new philosophies will emerge to teach a way of life without depending on AI technology, these philosophies will evolve into new religions after 500 years.
curry cope
@FlyingMonkies325 Well lets see..
@@JuanLopez-zo8os Pora "Tella kukka"
This is really a great video. Quite a balanced view on technology and nice little history on technology over the years, to demonstrate the points 👍
Totally. Love this kind of short yet complete video.
@@ppatsyy , " Short yet complete", I loved that line 👍, I am going to use it...
Thanks for reminding me how far behind the curve economists truly are.
No, technology is there to help us and make our life easier while some people uses technology for wrongdoings.
A great video, I agree entirely. Thank you, The Economist!
Technologies make economic & social activities rich, policies keeping them sound. They are the two wings of civilization.
Technologies amplify the possibility & dangerousness of the human species. Policies maximize the former, minimizing the latter.
Technologies can be seen as tools for changing natural & social environments, policies as an adaptation to these environments.
I hope we can improve wealth creation & distribution, our abilities & their utilization with new techs & comprehensive policies.
I think there is a significant risk when artificial intelligence is used without regulation and without control.
My 7 yr old verbalized something along that line...he loves robots. For out of the mouth of babes immense wisdom if only adults listen to them.
“Mommy robots will destroy people.” The boy is extremely intelligent and highly intuitive and I’m not just saying this because of my being his mother.
The child has even predicted international incidents months before they occur. I try keeping it from him for he is too young to understand (plenty of time as an adult.)
@@alaskangirl7475 what
@@patrickl2124 psychic abilities run in my family I have a every high accuracy rate but my 7 old is truly amazing
In developingcountries ur country people will use it to destroy us.
@@alaskangirl7475 i think you might be mistaken...
You are amazing. Thank you for such thought-provoking videos revealing the truth of our reality.
Basically, history repeats itself. Similar things which happened in the industrial revolution have been becoming. And we know that this cannot be prevented. I want to believe it is very likely that we can give direction to technology to save the world.
It all comes down on HOW you use technology. You can use it for the better or for the worse.
And to my fellow technology pessimistic viewers… if you think technology is bad for humanity, then stop using it, and more ironically, to comment your negative points of view on this technological social media platforms.
Interesting video. Thank you.
who edited this video? The graphics are amazing. Please tag your workers.
Why no concerns on the addictive tendency of social media?
They could make another hour video on that topic
I didn't learn the answer to the question. How did this video answer it?
Frankenstein was written 203 years ago, and we still don't have a better metaphor for our relationship with science & technology
The future of Technology is integration between humans and AI also technology will allow us to build stuff at a faster rate and transform the 3rd world countries but there is a double edged sword with this
But it also can bring a even deeper damage to the middle class and destroy jobs.
@@gordusmaximus4990 also anyone in retail and drive are at risk
@@gordusmaximus4990 Which is why we will be forced to adopt a new system of government, in which automation is owned by everyone. Think futuristic communism.
Result :
HALF the HUMANITY ....MUST Be SACRIFICED .
Extinction is the future of technology? So you're putting technological progress above human continuation?
Anyone who’s afraid of tech should live with the Amish community
@Neil Peters they certainly do. They even use iPhones now!
Lets be honest, virtual reality is way impressive than flying cars
Yes and no
Tech is great but sometimes tech can fail
I am looking forward in the development of technology, but athe same time also am i worried about that. Basically i am excited to get all the information.
Technology has 2 sides of economic... part of production, maximum productivity, efficient time and input, maximum output (positive)... Change from labour to machine, so unemployment increasingly (negative)...
That’s true which is why we need a new economic system, technology is getting better and what we’ll see is new jobs created look at any revolution many jobs disappear and many are born
Ok so forgive me for sounding redundant but does this mean that um something like technology is a double edged sword? ... im taking notes.
I'm mostly bored by technology.
Nice video.
Quite curious. No mention of the potential use of technology by bad actors nor the existential risks they may pose. Was that intentional?
Informative
Of course, technology is optimal and reliable, as long as it is used in a responsible, progressive and ethical manner with the purpose of improving aspects of human daily life, without affecting or transgressing its nature
İt depend on how People use tecnology
It’s a problem when it threatens stability. People like new opportunities but no 40 year old with 20 years in an industry and 2 degrees wants to hear that their industry and job have become obsolete. People don’t mind improving technology but not if it means that you are displaced overnight just when you are in need of the most stability in your life as you are likely raising a family and have a great deal of responsibility. What do you do with a 50 something person making 150k? Are you going to retrain them for their last 10 years in the workforce? Are they going to be willing to start at the bottom at age 53? Technology exists to improve our lives. Innovation must consider the nature of human existence otherwise there will be a backlash.
no, however not depend on technology either
amazing
The Tesla robot will be fine.
Wow, a actual video and not just a link to a article behind a paywall …
I'm going to watch this more than once to celebrate.
_[yes I'm being petty and sArCaStIC]_
Really? I expected more from The Economist. The question, granted as suggested by your opening shot, is, "Should we be worried about ourselves?" (Yes, obviously. We cant be trusted, cause... hmmmm... Civilization and its Discontents).
Civilizations come and go history has taught us, but still civilization always survives. People find it too much in their interest not to organize and set up and ordered society. Even during the Dark Ages civilization survived and re-emerged into the Renaissance.
And even as dark as things may seem now, think of progress. Racism was wide spread across America back in the 60s even up to the 90s. But there have been significant changes and compared to then life is so much better for minorities. Strange example, but look at Israel right now. The ruling coalition was able to do so because the Muslims joined them. Yes, Muslims, despite all the problems they have in Israel and many justifiable, but still they have the right to vote which is very rare in other Muslim countries. I don't think anyone would have ever thought they would see that.
There are always discontents who don't like progress or where progress hasn't gone far enough yet. History shows it is always like 2 steps forward, 1 step back.
I guess everyone interested in this topic will enjoy the short story "The voice of the dolphins" by one of the fathers of the nuclear era, Leo Szilard
It is rethorical question. !!!
I'm against that Cyberpunk-like dystopian future where advanced technology is integrated into every aspect of society, and corporations wield significant power. My posts highlight the negative consequences of a hyper-technological world on the human condition. Looking at the current state of the world it is safe to say that in the future, it is possible that certain aspects of the human experience could be diminished or altered, potentially resulting in a loss of some elements we consider integral to our societies. There are a few potential ways in which the human aspect of society could be affected in a Cyberpunk future. For example, in a highly technologized and corporate-dominated world, there may be a risk of dehumanization, where people are reduced to mere cogs in the machinery of society. Human interaction, empathy, and compassion may be diminished as individuals become more isolated and detached from one another. Another example is stratification and inequality. There would be this vast gap between the wealthy elite and the impoverished masses. This socioeconomic disparity could exacerbate existing inequalities and lead to a loss of social cohesion and solidarity. Also we can already see the loss of privacy and autonomy. Advanced surveillance technologies and pervasive connectivity could further erode personal privacy and individual autonomy. Constant monitoring and data collection might make it challenging to maintain personal agency and freedom of thought. Also the dependency on technology. While technological advancements can enhance our lives, an excessive reliance on technology may lead to a loss of self-sufficiency and critical thinking skills. If technology becomes integral to every aspect of life, society might become vulnerable to disruption and control by those who control the technology. As well as cultural homogenization, In a Cyberpunk-like future, corporate influence would dominate cultural expression, potentially resulting in the loss of diversity and individuality. This could lead to a more homogeneous society, devoid of the rich tapestry of human cultural experiences. But, we need to realize that the future is not predetermined, and societies are shaped by the choices we make collectively. While there are concerns about the potential loss of the human aspect of society, it's a cautionary tale rather than an inevitable outcome. How we navigate the integration of technology into our lives and how we address issues such as inequality, privacy, and autonomy will ultimately determine the future direction of our societies.
Big yes..
Worried about politic instead
Thanks for watching, I have something real big I would love to introduce you to
T.E.X.T
+ 𝟷𝟽𝟷𝟽𝟺𝟽𝟹𝟿𝟺𝟹𝟾
not much we can / we could do.
If implemented ethically, technology is the best. We can not deny the progress and comfort it brought to our lives these past centuries.
Has anything been nothing but good?~ If it isn't technology, we'd still find ways to self-destruction. Might as well embrace techonology while limiting the damage along the way.
Yes.
YES WE SHOULD BE WORRIED. WHEN THE NEXT GENERATION WILL NEVER KNOW A MOMENT OF PRIVACY.
I feel like this is saying we should be balanced and nuanced, but the historical examples show that people were usually excited about technology thinking it would lead to some utopian future and then it never turns out that way and we become pessimistic. It honestly seems like we should just stay a little more on the pessimistic skeptical side with big new technological advancements because they always seem to come with problems just as big or even bigger than the solutions.
I'm here for the clip at 2:46 and thats all.
Thanks for watching, I have something real big I would love to introduce you to
T.E.X.T
+ 𝟷𝟽𝟷𝟽𝟺𝟽𝟹𝟿𝟺𝟹𝟾
Thanks for watching, I have something real big I would love to introduce you to
T.E.X.T
+ 𝟷𝟽𝟷𝟽𝟺𝟽𝟹𝟿𝟺𝟹𝟾
Thanks for watching, I have something real big I would love to introduce you to
T.E.X.T
+ 𝟷𝟽𝟷𝟽𝟺𝟽𝟹𝟿𝟺𝟹𝟾
Stupidity is the enemy, not technology.
I’m just here for the comments
I wonder why THE ECHONOMIST is worried about people not having a jab
Because The Economist focuses on current affairs, international business, politics, and technology. Vaccines are current affairs, politics (apparently) and tech.
Who was that guy of mit (quotation about nationalism).
A balance btw embracing and fear
So is it any wonder people are afraid of technology
There is flying cars, is just that they can fly just once
Nombers don't lie
And insulting me in the process
We need to use technology the will help to adapt us to the disruptive effects of warming planet not to control us through disinformation.
What year is it? 1984.
Funny they mentioned flying, because Concord was faster. If it was someone from really recent past they would have a lot of questions on why we didn't advance as much.
4:02 "deeply unpopular" this is the first time I heard this, I've never known how others felt about them. I would love to see a source for this
4:56 not without government intervention, which is universal access to education.
I saw blockchain and web 3 all over the video.
Something tells me the Economist is not very critical about any secondary effects of vaccines...hmm
solve a problem to gain more problems!
Our desicion makers implement ing the wrong solutions ...
Technology will cost you your freedom and render your humanity redundant
So luke smith's channel in a nutshell
Why are they giving some bs history lesson.
Thanks for watching, I have something real big I would love to introduce you to
T.E.X.T
+ 𝟷𝟽𝟷𝟽𝟺𝟽𝟹𝟿𝟺𝟹𝟾
Add companies after technology on your title, and that’s the answer.
Where does The Economist talk about the depreciation of technology purchased by consumers? But if we buy more junk they add it to GDP.
What is NDP? Can economists do algebra?
Aren't you getting a little old for clickbait, Economist? "Are robots coming for our pension checks?" "Will our robot overlords force us to breed?"
Thanks for watching, I have something real big I would love to introduce you to
T.E.X.T
+ 𝟷𝟽𝟷𝟽𝟺𝟽𝟹𝟿𝟺𝟹𝟾
Whenever you see the question “should we fear x” answer is always no.
There is nothing to fear, you will die and be judged by the Lord. It is coming and the sooner you accept that the sooner you will find peace Saint and sinner alike. A machine may make your life miserable, sorrow is the lot of some. Machines or no machines we cannot avoid unpleasantness, try to be wise, avoid and find ways to endure pain and toil. If you are fortunate you will find ways but some people are doomed to a bitter life. Loving others is a balm for a sore soul.
Imagine someone complaining about technology on the internet.
Then Nobody CARE's ...
That because of technology
Why would I fear technology I can play Fortnite and see biggy booba and assy assy.
Thanks for stealing my stuff
Worry only about the technology that improves nuclear weapons.
Why is the "misinformation" only about vaccines??
The usual economist: baseless speculations and totally unproven claims.
What does that statement have to do with this video?
@@RealityRogue For example technology didn't change the balance of power as he claimed. The balance of power today is not worse than in 19th century.
Technology is evil.
👁️👆⏳🔥☠️
British accent
This is a reason why people don't want to be vaxinated because of some with lipid nanoparticles not sure about having nano bots are going to do on the latter basis
All we worry about is cringe content on social media platforms
.my brother said people will smash up computers up one Day that' was in the 1970 s
Pegasus