kind of an asinine premise. i doubt guttenberg fretted about what all the scribes would do when he made the printing press.
the problem is not lack of empathy for those left out by technological advances, it's that the pace is so fast it's become very difficult to adapt.
That's a pretty dismissive response to an article about an empathy vacuum. ;)
i'm from new jersey, empathy does not exist here.
Yes it does, but only in one person, and he wants to move to North Dakota
There are almost 7 billion people in the world who are all fighting for security and wealth. Some of these individuals are better off than others creating a competitive advantage via capitalism and social status. Is it a tech companies responsibility to address this issue? Is it an individuals responsibility to make sure they have an edge in the market? Should the government step in and help when disruption happens?
These are all lenses different people are using to look at the same problems: overpopulation and inequality.
In most countries, taking care of people whose life has been disrupted by new technologies would be the government's job. Losing your job as a truck driver wouldn't be as bad if it didn't also mean losing your health care benefits.
Exactly. The problem isn't that we're developing ways to accomplish things without human labor—the problem is that we have not put adequate social safety nets in place to ensure that people can maintain their standard of living and work fewer hours.
A step in the right direction would be making public college tuition free and granting a universal basic income to all citizens.
The only reason healthcare benefits are even attached to our jobs in the first place is because of the wage caps set in place by Woodrow Wilson.
In most countries, taking care of people whose life has been disrupted by new technologies would be the government's job
Easy to take peoples livelihoods away when you can blame someone else ey?
SV disgusts me.
Technology has now reached a point where it is making human labor obsolete via automation (e.g., manufacturing now, trucking/driving tomorrow). So the empathy vacuum refers to a lack of consideration for those people. Work provides meaning, dignity, and livelihood for people. Now that technology has replaced them, what are they going to do? No one really knows for sure but it'll be a difficult road for them.
And remember—these technologies aren't a natural phenomenon or in any way inevitable. We decide they should exist and therefore we decide that these jobs should not exist. But we don't know what to do with these people who have no way to engage in meaningful work. The technology itself isn't the problem; it's that we didn't think how it affects all these people. I think that thoughtlessness is at the heart of the empathy vacuum.
If we take the Uber/Lyft phenomenon as an example, I'd say those products couldn't arise without a considerable amount of empathy -- for the consumer. The improvement of those experiences over the old frustrations of getting and riding in a taxi is considerable. That specific example might be problematic due to the controversies surrounding labor practices and corporate culture at Uber (perhaps Lyft, too, I'm not sure), and one might argue that these stem from a different kind of empathy problem, but you can't design for your users in an empathy vacuum.
I feel like this article missed a big point about technology and how it effects people, which in turn effects how we care about others, how empathetic we are, etc.
You're right. It's bothered me for a while that as an industry we talk a lot about "engagement" when the reality is often the opposite. We seek to keep people on their phones without caring what that means for human relationships.
Trump elected president & San Francisco is now quieter? Oh please, not a chance.