1/ There's something I've been trying to put into words but I don't know how yet. Maybe some folks on here (STS people?) can help me?
-
-
3/ The thing is, I don't know how to argue or even caution against it at this point. The reason it's such an accessible idea is because we live in a time of technological wonder. So the actual null feels like "why can't technology solve this?" rather than "can technology help?"
Show this thread -
4/ Technocratic solutions now are dramatically different than they would even 50 years ago — the capabilities are, truly, Clarke-ian magic. So, most people do think tech is great. Experts identify problems... ...but they're also not most people, definitionally.
Show this thread -
5/ TLDR: I'm generally wary of technocratic solutions because I think this remarkable technological capacity to be misleading relative to the size and staggering complexity of the problems people want to solve. But that's hard to communicate, let alone demonstrate.
Show this thread -
6/ It's even harder to communicate why my primary means of exploring problems is computational. If you're asking, "what are the information processing dynamics of this particular type of society?" the warnings fall a bit flat, since you're halfway there already.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.