At the theoretical center of it seems to be the work of Robert Solow who, if I understand, accounts for technological development as an exogenous factor in his models for economic growth, wherein technological development is understood a driving force of capitalism essentially.It's the same thing we've gone back and forth on re: capitalism as some sort of entity too.
do they bollocks. the middle class citizen has to work!At the theoretical center of it seems to be the work of Robert Solow who, if I understand, accounts for technological development as an exogenous factor in his models for economic growth, wherein technological development is understood a driving force of capitalism essentially.
Makes sense to me. It seems obvious to me that, because of technology hyperboosted by capital, the middle class citizen in a developed nation today enjoys a quality of life comparable to that of aristocrats a couple centuries ago.
Microsoft Accidentally Leaks One Outlook Project Monarch Image
On an Office Insider Preview blog, Microsoft’s One Outlook – known as Project Monarch – seems to have made an appearance.
True, and that is probably the biggest point in favor of the aristocrats. But even aristocrats lounging their parlor having sex with their servants still seem to suffer from many things that many of us today do not.do they bollocks. the middle class citizen has to work!
How many gamers wanted microtransactions?you think, why can't we exercise any control here? how many people want a microchip up the bum? very few i'd imagine and yet here come the microchips
yes but this is too tedious to make and elides the very question that version is raisingBut I do think there is an obvious argument to be made for technology raising the status quo of quality of life, for more than just the upper class.
e.g. a subway is an easier and more effective means of transportation than even the most lavish of horse-drawn buggies.True, and that is probably the biggest point in favor of the aristocrats. But even aristocrats lounging their parlor having sex with their servants still seem to suffer from many things that many of us today do not.
The point version is making is that the pro-tech and pro-capitalist arguments people make, often defer their own value judgements to some allegedly objective and borderline metaphysical trend, which I have done on numerous occasions.yes but this is too tedious to make and elides the very question that version is raising
Ill intent, beyond being pro-capital and pro-tech in general?They're two different arguments. We're saying people with ill intent frame their preferred technological change as inevitable. You're saying some technologies have improved people's lives.
Well I'm also arguing that technologically driven capitalism has resulted in a net-positive effect on the status quo of quality of life, more or less across the board. "Net-positive" being the operative term, i.e. after the glaring negative impacts have been considered.They're two different arguments. We're saying people with ill intent frame their preferred technological change as inevitable. You're saying some technologies have improved people's lives.