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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow 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.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow 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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @generativist
I can possibly help a little with this, but at this point your question is vague enough that it feels like I need to throw the whole STS canon at it to get there. Technophilia is obviously a broad thing, so can we do a narrow instance? A type of tech and a type of problem?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MichaelTBacon
So, I've read two books recently — one academic proceedings and the other from crypto-adjacent technologists — both effectively talking about engineering a new political operating system.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @MichaelTBacon
It's very hard for me as someone who simulates home/social behavior to essentially say, "look, don't touch." Like, claiming simulation as an instrument to see better while trying to say, "danger, this works less well as an engine!" is hard.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @MichaelTBacon
My field has a lot of talk about the social simulation question in general. But lately, this whole "let's restructure society with modern IT" feels a lot more visible and specific.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist
Michael T. Bacon Retweeted Michael T. Bacon
Yeah, I'm definitely ready to respond, "actually let's not!" to that before adding "society is already in the process of restructuring around modern IT." But I think pace my point #1 here, Haraway's Situated Knowledges are a good place to start.https://twitter.com/MichaelTBacon/status/1232038454172803073 …
Michael T. Bacon added,
Michael T. Bacon @MichaelTBaconReplying to @MichaelTBacon @generativistI mean the most general responses I'd say are along these lines: 1. Experts, even very good ones, still only have limited views of the problem, and their views themselves are mediated by sociotechnical assemblages. So they are often missing something.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MichaelTBacon @generativist
Standpoint theory gets to basically the same place in a different tradition but I love Haraway because she refuses to give up on some kind of scientific objectivity, she just wants it qualified by situation. You can still do science!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.