This was a great piece Jason! I too enjoyed the case studies. You focused on drugs in this piece, but I imagine food has had a similar path? I’m thinking that we have food safety testing and nutrition labels now, for example.
Thank you for writing this! I think the point you are making is important, and the in-depth examples were immensely useful in making that point. I will certainly remember those examples for my own thoughts and conversations about this and similar topics! :)
The history part here is fantastic. I love learning about the history of technology within a thematic framework.
But the interest of the argument is somewhat impaired by the obviousness of the larger takeaways. I suppose there are those who would resist the idea that electricity is progress, but innovations to prevent electrical fires are also progress. But they're so misguided, and I think rather rare, that refuting them doesn't seem very urgent.
I listen to a piece like this seeking to discern how to maximize the rate of progress, not to figure out whether it's good or what it means. And I think it's helpful for that purpose, to some extent. But it's less helpful than it might be, because you're more interested in establishing some large, obvious takeaways, rather than navigating trade-offs or probing edge cases.
Still a fan, to be sure! But I'm less interested in the "techno-humanist manifesto" aspect of it, which seems almost too unproblematic to be interesting, than in the detailed case studies, so lucidly narrated.
This was a great piece Jason! I too enjoyed the case studies. You focused on drugs in this piece, but I imagine food has had a similar path? I’m thinking that we have food safety testing and nutrition labels now, for example.
Yes, I'm sure there are many such stories.
Thank you for writing this! I think the point you are making is important, and the in-depth examples were immensely useful in making that point. I will certainly remember those examples for my own thoughts and conversations about this and similar topics! :)
The history part here is fantastic. I love learning about the history of technology within a thematic framework.
But the interest of the argument is somewhat impaired by the obviousness of the larger takeaways. I suppose there are those who would resist the idea that electricity is progress, but innovations to prevent electrical fires are also progress. But they're so misguided, and I think rather rare, that refuting them doesn't seem very urgent.
I listen to a piece like this seeking to discern how to maximize the rate of progress, not to figure out whether it's good or what it means. And I think it's helpful for that purpose, to some extent. But it's less helpful than it might be, because you're more interested in establishing some large, obvious takeaways, rather than navigating trade-offs or probing edge cases.
Still a fan, to be sure! But I'm less interested in the "techno-humanist manifesto" aspect of it, which seems almost too unproblematic to be interesting, than in the detailed case studies, so lucidly narrated.