Joe Weisenthal had an interesting Tweet recently, where he observed that most of the rhetoric from the tech industry in recent years is pitched at investors, not users or the general public. This is why we get the grandiose, alienating sci-fi rhetoric. What a (usually male) wealthy tech investor cares about will just be radially different than what ordinary users care about. So you get a lot of rhetoric around AI that frames it as something that will replace people rather than augment them. You get “adapt or die” instead of a sales pitch and trainings designed for regular people. You have rhetoric that almost seems to celebrate artists being replaced.
This is why they’re aping Andreesen rather than MADD rhetorically. They need money from investors more than they want people to use the products more (which, maybe, indicates we’re in a bubble).
It seems like more and more, but especially in the tech industry, users/consumers are viewed as some combination of the product and/or a resource to be exploited, rather than the customer to be served. That observation seems like exactly what you would expect to see if that were the case.
This is great! I would argue also that the onus is not just on women and the culture to embrace technology, but also for technology company developers and investors to consider the needs of women. If there's one thing Silicon Valley is great at building, it's the "private taxi for my burrito" type of company - ways to reduce social friction that actually (I think) promote loneliness. I heard the quip somewhere that the prototypical Silicon Valley founder is a bachelor who just wants to replace the things his mom used to do for him (drive him around, bring him food, pick out his clothes). Jessica Winter wrote a great New Yorker piece a decade or so ago, asking 'why hasn't Silicon Valley built a better breast pump' - given how many hours women spend extracting milk, that's a great example of a technology that is long overdue for innovation. Besides getting more women in investor positions, I'm not sure what the solution is, but I feel like there's a ton of untapped potential in tech to build better products for women.
Hang on, what about the Elvie Pump?! I don’t know if it was literally “built by Silicon Valley” but it is recent, it is great, and it visibly has Silicon Valley aesthetics. Bad example.
Also as a mom, “replacing stuff my mom used to do for me” so I have time to deal with the kids is also exactly what I need!
Yes- like I mentioned, the NYer piece was from about a decade ago! So there has been more innovation in this sector since then. But the fact that it took so long to get new innovation in the breastfeeding space is surprising given how many millions of women struggle with pumping. Another example: about a third of women over 40 suffer from bladder leaks, but there has not been as much innovation in this sector either (there are a few devices and products but not what you might expect given the market share of women this represents). Compare it to erectile dysfunction or hair growth products and I think there's a lot less energy around women's health.
I would argue that overall Silicon Valley has done a better job of solving private problems vs public problems and the layers of VCs & investors has historically been extremely male dominated which has led to priorities that aren't always geared towards women's interest.
Thanks for this article, it’s good to see a thoughtful rebuttal to Aporia.
FYI, I wouldn’t use German high-speed rail as an example of excellent infrastructure, since their trains for some reason are always late! France and Italy are doing better. Switzerland and Japan have top notch public transport! 🇨🇭🇯🇵
Germany doesn’t even really have true high speed rail! They have a few segments on their intercity lines that are at or slightly above Amtrak top speeds, but I don’t think they have any city to city routes that average better than 80 mph. France, Spain, Italy, and Japan, Taiwan, China of course do.
Love the article, Jerusalem, especially your first footnote! Cheers to small independent journalism!
I understand there are a ton of theories and concrete reasons why high-speed rail hasn't taken off in America, but it is truly sad that if these types of infrastructure projects would create numerous jobs and create an alternative to air travel (which I hate).
Also, in regards to renewable energy, it's truly sad that our current administration hates wind power. America has thousands of miles of coastline where offshore wind farms could be built to supply clean, renewable energy to local communities.
Why is it when people argue for nuclear energy - they never talk about what will be done with all that accumulated waste. I am all for progress as in solar and wind which are far less expensive to build.
Storing nuclear waste is basically a solved problem and modern reactors generate very little waste. Nuclear power generation is also much denser than solar or wind, meaning more energy generated in a smaller space, which is something you might want if your say, a city with limited space.
Solar and wind definitely have the price advantage, but they require a lot more land. Geothermal has other advantages compared to both. We really want to use all of these, each in the place where its particular downsides aren’t as much of a problem. (Hydrocarbons unfortunately have a downside that is bad as long as they are located inside earth’s atmosphere, and they can’t operate without a convenient source of oxygen, like earth’s atmosphere.)
I enjoyed reading this, and I agree with your overall point about addressing the gender/technology gap.
I got a little hung up, though, on your case example of e-bikes. The notion of putting a motor on a two-wheeled bicycle was the impetus behind the development of the Daimler Petroleum Reitwagen in 1885. Many of these early motorcycles were built on bicycle frames and moved at speeds that are similar to e-bikes today.
When we consider then e-bikes as equalizer, to what degree are they an innovation. Even before the recent rise to prominence of e-bikes - which I would argue is largely an outgrowth of a sluggish physical infrastructure and an outdated licensing regime - the capability existed for you to travel on two wheels and end up at your destination sweat-free. What, then, was the barrier to you getting a motorcycle and ending up at your destination? I would argue it is largely cultural and un-related to either innovation or the ability of a motor-driven two-wheeler getting you to your destination safely.
All this is to say J - buy a motorcycle. Bike is life.
I think there would be a difference too if there were a sense that regulation of new tech was possible. Eg I am ok with self driving cars if companies are honest about their problems and capabilities.
Thank you for this great piece! I've always found the techno-optimist vs techno-pessimist distinction to be interesting.
Humans are good at simplifications like this. Most of them are useful, but I think that the way we flatten the breadth of human technological development into a single bucket called "progress" is a simplification that has outlived its usefulness, as is the techno-optimist/techno-pessimist dichotomy.
I am pro people and planet, and insofar as technology improves long term human fluorishing, I'm for it. Technological progress for its own sake is neither good nor bad. There is good progress and bad progress and we should treat them as distinct.
This is the crux for me: "I want a techno-optimism that is focused on human progress."
Fire, antibiotics, and nuclear power? Yes, please! Nuclear weapons, Twitter, and smartphones? No thank you. We ought to judge technologies on their merits. There is a difference between inventing a technology to satisfy a want, and that technology actually improving lives once it's in place. As anyone who has experienced addiction will know, desire and fluorishing don't necessarily go hand in hand. We get it wrong sometimes and we should be honest when that happens, but we shouldn't let that stop us from making progress that legitimately improves lives.
It's not always, or even usually, possible to separate good progress and bad progress. To use your own example - harnessing the atom led to the development of both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. Progress is usually value neutral, and its harm or benefit is all in the application.
To take another example you provided, smartphones, I don't use social media and agree it's probably more inherently harmful that beneficial (although perhaps some algorithmic innovation, or better incentives, could change that). Nonetheless, I marvel at the quality of life improvements smartphones have delivered to my family every time I'm in the kitchen cooking a traditional recipe some food blogger wrangled out of their grandmother, or when my husband is hunched over some household appliance with his phone propped up next to him as an expert demonstrates how to fix it on YouTube.
What I appreciate most about this piece is captured in its subtitle - "Technology is about liberation". Freedom always has tradeoffs.
I agree that tradeoffs are unavoidable, and that no one has a crystal ball to tell them whether a particular research decision will lead down a positive or negative path, but I think that there are usually indications one way or the other. Intentions matter.
For example, I expect more positive research outcomes to come from a researcher at the Yale School of Medicine than somebody at YouTube or TikTok working to make their algorithm more addictive. Some things really are no brainers.
Are computer-driven cars really "technological progress", though?
Or are they a gigantic gamble on the functional reliability of their guidance software — and the security of this software from the non-zero possibility of a malicious intrusion by a hostile actor or force, which could reprogram the driving protocol of however many cars rely on this software at the same time, potentially creating mass fatalities and chaos on the road?
The same question applies to nuclear power.
Are fission reactors really "technological progress", or are they a regressive re-think of a tempting but dangerous way to create gigabytes of carbon-neutral power — which could easily be generated by much safer solar panels — along with a massive gamble in assuming the non-zero risk of either a catastrophic technical or human error — or both, simultaneously, in the case of Chernobyl (for example) — with the potential for causing mass fatalities, power shortages, chaos, and permanent environmental damage on a regional or even continental scale?
This is what we are all asking ourselves.
Is it "feminine" to be cautious then, or simply wise?
It's possible to come up with far-fetched fears about anything, but that's just paranoia, not wisdom. Of course the guidance software of self-driving cars needs to be resistant to hacking, something that is also true in many other industries where lives are at stake like aviation and medicine. Despite suffering from occasional hacks, using software in these industries has saved many more lives than it has cost, and the same will be true for self-driving cars.
In contrast to self-driving cars, nuclear power is a mature technology for which we know the risks. Even including catastrophic failures (which are less common in newer designs), nuclear is one of the safest forms of energy, slightly more dangerous than solar but safer than wind (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/).
Anticipation of failure is not "paranoia", it's intelligence. This is because failure is always only a question of time, even in "safe" systems which fail infrequently. The problem with nuclear reactors and cities filled with computer-driven cars is that a failure of either would be absolutely catastrophic.
Also, since the risks of nuclear reactors are "known", as they are, why would anyone in their right mind want to pursue this *proven* risk of an outdated ("mature") 1950s-era technology, when there are much safer options available?
Maybe statista.com should ask residents of eastern Europe or northeast Honshu about how safe they think nuclear reactors are…
Joe Weisenthal had an interesting Tweet recently, where he observed that most of the rhetoric from the tech industry in recent years is pitched at investors, not users or the general public. This is why we get the grandiose, alienating sci-fi rhetoric. What a (usually male) wealthy tech investor cares about will just be radially different than what ordinary users care about. So you get a lot of rhetoric around AI that frames it as something that will replace people rather than augment them. You get “adapt or die” instead of a sales pitch and trainings designed for regular people. You have rhetoric that almost seems to celebrate artists being replaced.
This is why they’re aping Andreesen rather than MADD rhetorically. They need money from investors more than they want people to use the products more (which, maybe, indicates we’re in a bubble).
It seems like more and more, but especially in the tech industry, users/consumers are viewed as some combination of the product and/or a resource to be exploited, rather than the customer to be served. That observation seems like exactly what you would expect to see if that were the case.
This is great! I would argue also that the onus is not just on women and the culture to embrace technology, but also for technology company developers and investors to consider the needs of women. If there's one thing Silicon Valley is great at building, it's the "private taxi for my burrito" type of company - ways to reduce social friction that actually (I think) promote loneliness. I heard the quip somewhere that the prototypical Silicon Valley founder is a bachelor who just wants to replace the things his mom used to do for him (drive him around, bring him food, pick out his clothes). Jessica Winter wrote a great New Yorker piece a decade or so ago, asking 'why hasn't Silicon Valley built a better breast pump' - given how many hours women spend extracting milk, that's a great example of a technology that is long overdue for innovation. Besides getting more women in investor positions, I'm not sure what the solution is, but I feel like there's a ton of untapped potential in tech to build better products for women.
Hang on, what about the Elvie Pump?! I don’t know if it was literally “built by Silicon Valley” but it is recent, it is great, and it visibly has Silicon Valley aesthetics. Bad example.
Also as a mom, “replacing stuff my mom used to do for me” so I have time to deal with the kids is also exactly what I need!
Yes- like I mentioned, the NYer piece was from about a decade ago! So there has been more innovation in this sector since then. But the fact that it took so long to get new innovation in the breastfeeding space is surprising given how many millions of women struggle with pumping. Another example: about a third of women over 40 suffer from bladder leaks, but there has not been as much innovation in this sector either (there are a few devices and products but not what you might expect given the market share of women this represents). Compare it to erectile dysfunction or hair growth products and I think there's a lot less energy around women's health.
I would argue that overall Silicon Valley has done a better job of solving private problems vs public problems and the layers of VCs & investors has historically been extremely male dominated which has led to priorities that aren't always geared towards women's interest.
Thanks for this article, it’s good to see a thoughtful rebuttal to Aporia.
FYI, I wouldn’t use German high-speed rail as an example of excellent infrastructure, since their trains for some reason are always late! France and Italy are doing better. Switzerland and Japan have top notch public transport! 🇨🇭🇯🇵
Germany doesn’t even really have true high speed rail! They have a few segments on their intercity lines that are at or slightly above Amtrak top speeds, but I don’t think they have any city to city routes that average better than 80 mph. France, Spain, Italy, and Japan, Taiwan, China of course do.
Love the article, Jerusalem, especially your first footnote! Cheers to small independent journalism!
I understand there are a ton of theories and concrete reasons why high-speed rail hasn't taken off in America, but it is truly sad that if these types of infrastructure projects would create numerous jobs and create an alternative to air travel (which I hate).
Also, in regards to renewable energy, it's truly sad that our current administration hates wind power. America has thousands of miles of coastline where offshore wind farms could be built to supply clean, renewable energy to local communities.
“ Reactionaries point to China’s high-speed rail network while conveniently ignoring Italy’s, France’s, and Germany’s”
China negates our excuse that America is too big for rail. Europe’s density means they would be insane to not have it.
When you capitalize conservative is when it means stingy I guess.
Why is it when people argue for nuclear energy - they never talk about what will be done with all that accumulated waste. I am all for progress as in solar and wind which are far less expensive to build.
Storing nuclear waste is basically a solved problem and modern reactors generate very little waste. Nuclear power generation is also much denser than solar or wind, meaning more energy generated in a smaller space, which is something you might want if your say, a city with limited space.
There are ways to build reactors that produce much less waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor?wprov=sfla1
Solar and wind definitely have the price advantage, but they require a lot more land. Geothermal has other advantages compared to both. We really want to use all of these, each in the place where its particular downsides aren’t as much of a problem. (Hydrocarbons unfortunately have a downside that is bad as long as they are located inside earth’s atmosphere, and they can’t operate without a convenient source of oxygen, like earth’s atmosphere.)
Great point.
I enjoyed reading this, and I agree with your overall point about addressing the gender/technology gap.
I got a little hung up, though, on your case example of e-bikes. The notion of putting a motor on a two-wheeled bicycle was the impetus behind the development of the Daimler Petroleum Reitwagen in 1885. Many of these early motorcycles were built on bicycle frames and moved at speeds that are similar to e-bikes today.
When we consider then e-bikes as equalizer, to what degree are they an innovation. Even before the recent rise to prominence of e-bikes - which I would argue is largely an outgrowth of a sluggish physical infrastructure and an outdated licensing regime - the capability existed for you to travel on two wheels and end up at your destination sweat-free. What, then, was the barrier to you getting a motorcycle and ending up at your destination? I would argue it is largely cultural and un-related to either innovation or the ability of a motor-driven two-wheeler getting you to your destination safely.
All this is to say J - buy a motorcycle. Bike is life.
I think there would be a difference too if there were a sense that regulation of new tech was possible. Eg I am ok with self driving cars if companies are honest about their problems and capabilities.
Thank you for this great piece! I've always found the techno-optimist vs techno-pessimist distinction to be interesting.
Humans are good at simplifications like this. Most of them are useful, but I think that the way we flatten the breadth of human technological development into a single bucket called "progress" is a simplification that has outlived its usefulness, as is the techno-optimist/techno-pessimist dichotomy.
I am pro people and planet, and insofar as technology improves long term human fluorishing, I'm for it. Technological progress for its own sake is neither good nor bad. There is good progress and bad progress and we should treat them as distinct.
This is the crux for me: "I want a techno-optimism that is focused on human progress."
Fire, antibiotics, and nuclear power? Yes, please! Nuclear weapons, Twitter, and smartphones? No thank you. We ought to judge technologies on their merits. There is a difference between inventing a technology to satisfy a want, and that technology actually improving lives once it's in place. As anyone who has experienced addiction will know, desire and fluorishing don't necessarily go hand in hand. We get it wrong sometimes and we should be honest when that happens, but we shouldn't let that stop us from making progress that legitimately improves lives.
It's not always, or even usually, possible to separate good progress and bad progress. To use your own example - harnessing the atom led to the development of both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. Progress is usually value neutral, and its harm or benefit is all in the application.
To take another example you provided, smartphones, I don't use social media and agree it's probably more inherently harmful that beneficial (although perhaps some algorithmic innovation, or better incentives, could change that). Nonetheless, I marvel at the quality of life improvements smartphones have delivered to my family every time I'm in the kitchen cooking a traditional recipe some food blogger wrangled out of their grandmother, or when my husband is hunched over some household appliance with his phone propped up next to him as an expert demonstrates how to fix it on YouTube.
What I appreciate most about this piece is captured in its subtitle - "Technology is about liberation". Freedom always has tradeoffs.
I agree that tradeoffs are unavoidable, and that no one has a crystal ball to tell them whether a particular research decision will lead down a positive or negative path, but I think that there are usually indications one way or the other. Intentions matter.
For example, I expect more positive research outcomes to come from a researcher at the Yale School of Medicine than somebody at YouTube or TikTok working to make their algorithm more addictive. Some things really are no brainers.
This is a quibble, but shouldn't "NET Want" be (the aggregate of want) - (the aggregate of not want), i.e. -26 if it's 63-37?
Are computer-driven cars really "technological progress", though?
Or are they a gigantic gamble on the functional reliability of their guidance software — and the security of this software from the non-zero possibility of a malicious intrusion by a hostile actor or force, which could reprogram the driving protocol of however many cars rely on this software at the same time, potentially creating mass fatalities and chaos on the road?
The same question applies to nuclear power.
Are fission reactors really "technological progress", or are they a regressive re-think of a tempting but dangerous way to create gigabytes of carbon-neutral power — which could easily be generated by much safer solar panels — along with a massive gamble in assuming the non-zero risk of either a catastrophic technical or human error — or both, simultaneously, in the case of Chernobyl (for example) — with the potential for causing mass fatalities, power shortages, chaos, and permanent environmental damage on a regional or even continental scale?
This is what we are all asking ourselves.
Is it "feminine" to be cautious then, or simply wise?
It's possible to come up with far-fetched fears about anything, but that's just paranoia, not wisdom. Of course the guidance software of self-driving cars needs to be resistant to hacking, something that is also true in many other industries where lives are at stake like aviation and medicine. Despite suffering from occasional hacks, using software in these industries has saved many more lives than it has cost, and the same will be true for self-driving cars.
In contrast to self-driving cars, nuclear power is a mature technology for which we know the risks. Even including catastrophic failures (which are less common in newer designs), nuclear is one of the safest forms of energy, slightly more dangerous than solar but safer than wind (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/).
Anticipation of failure is not "paranoia", it's intelligence. This is because failure is always only a question of time, even in "safe" systems which fail infrequently. The problem with nuclear reactors and cities filled with computer-driven cars is that a failure of either would be absolutely catastrophic.
Also, since the risks of nuclear reactors are "known", as they are, why would anyone in their right mind want to pursue this *proven* risk of an outdated ("mature") 1950s-era technology, when there are much safer options available?
Maybe statista.com should ask residents of eastern Europe or northeast Honshu about how safe they think nuclear reactors are…
Try solar, instead.