Your analysis isn't merely uncharitable but actively tendentious, almost insultingly so. Reading it I'm left wondering who here you'd expect to convince with it. "Those are political problems, should be left to politicians"? That's "M-x doctor"-grade logic.

I'm sure you have any number of substantive rebuttals, most of which I'll disagree with but many of which are at least interesting. Why write a comment so contemptuous of the site, instead of simply writing out what your real thoughts are?

There is nothing in the article to rebut. The article is merely engaging in mood affiliation - saying words that evoke the right emotions and appeal to the tribe of some readers - without actually engaging in reasoning that someone could rebut.

It dismisses problems like death and AI risk solely by describing them as "fake". No argument is made for this - the reader in the tribe of the author is assumed to already agree. It asserts that politics should control tech. Again no argument is made, because the reader is assumed to already agree. Similarly for the idea that techies somehow owe something to random (globally) wealthy people who are physically close to them.

What, exactly, is the argument you think I should rebut?

There's no especially respectful way to say this but I'll try my best since I think it's worth saying: this stuff about "mood affiliation" and "signaling" (elsewhere) and "tribes" seems like rhetoric you often reach for when backed into a corner.

It's ironic, I know, that I'm responding to your argument that "this article has nothing to rebut" by saying that your own comments are deliberately designed not to be rebuttable. But, it's true. This article self-evidently makes points that can be disagreed with, and your comments are designed to avoid that trap.

I think I'll have to back 'yummyfajitas on this one. The article does make some points, but a big part of it is just random insults at technologists and ridiculing their ideas. Some of it may be warranted, and I'm the first to take potshots at adtech, but there are limits. For me, this talk (and the few last ones of his too) reads a bit like "hahaha, look at those stupid, arrogant techies, they want to cure death, what a nonsense hahahaha".

You're not siding with 'yummyfajitas. You're (almost) doing what he refuses to do: pick an argument in Maciej's post ("techies shouldn't be trying to cure death") and rebutting it. If you fleshed that point out a little more you'd be going, rhetorically, in the opposite direction as him.

I happen to agree with most (maybe all?) of what's in Maciej's post. But my problem isn't that Stucchio disagrees with it; my problem is that he refuses to engage honestly with it, and then writes assumptively that we must, as fellow tech people, feel the same way. The reasoning he's used it embarrassingly weak, and I object to being assumptively affiliated with it.

>pick an argument in Maciej's post ("techies shouldn't be trying to cure death") and rebutting it

What argument? All Ceglowski offers in this article with regard to life extension is his bald assertion that such projects are 'delusional'. There's nothing there to rebut.

> What argument? All Ceglowski offers in this article with regard to life extension is his bald assertion that such projects are 'delusional'. There's nothing there to rebut.

Stating that a claim should be disregarded because it is presented as a bald assertion without support is a rebuttal.

You're right, but only in the most point-missingly literal sense.

Politics is far too important to be left to the politicians!

Politics is how we resolve disagreements, which is hard to do. Maciej argues (rightly, IMO) that avoiding politics for technology is basically retreating from a set of hard problems into a set of easier problems.

> From this he draws the conclusion that techies - currently doing a great job of solving the problems within their domain - should bow down and submit to control by the politicians who failed to solve the local problems he cares about.

He's saying that techies should directly engage in politics to achieve positive outcomes locally, before believing that they can use technology alone to achieve positive outcomes globally.

He's saying that what techies consider to be "problems within their domain" is worth some introspection.

>He's saying that what techies consider to be "problems within their domain" is worth some introspection.

But couldn't that lead to exactly the sort of arrogance that Maciej argues against? That engineers think their ability to solve tech-related problems means they are specially equipped to solve more complex problems in society?

For example, if some sociology major who had no programming experience tried to advise me on a challenge I have with some software I'm working on, based on something they read in Wired, I'm probably just going to roll my eyes. Frankly, it's pretty unlikely that someone who no background in the field I've dedicated my professional life to studying, can provide useful advice.

Likewise, do you think an engineer can provide useful advice on how to deal with poverty to a sociologist, one who has spent their career studying this issue? Do you really think the secret to improving society is to have a bunch of techies telling sociologists and economists how they think things should be run?

Maybe the right thing for techies is to pay their taxes, and participate in local elections as informed voters. Other than that, maybe we should stick to tech, and leave running society to the professionals.

I personally have a different perspective. Yes, avoiding politics for technology is retreating from a set of hard problems into a set of easier problems - but IMO most of those hard problems are distractions and utterly irrelevant to anything. That's why I'm siding with the techy approach on this one - avoiding politics seems to be much more cost-effective way of making things work.

And sure, a lot of the problems won't be easily solved by direct application of technology. But then again, not all should be. Isn't that one of Maciej's points? There are non-techies too, let them have some fun changing the world too. Let's each focus on helping in things we're good at.

Now don't get me wrong - I don't think the current computer industry is doing much to help anyone with anything. In this I agree with Maciej. But I think he extrapolates the industry problems too far. The issue isn't really with technology or smarts-driven approach, it's with the industry poisoned by short-term thinking, getting more ROI on bullshitting everyone and doing pointless make-believe work than on producing something useful.

>So first he's criticizing techies for not fixing the pathologies of Oakland. Then he's saying these problems are rightly the domain of politics. So what's the problem? Those are political problems, should be left to politicians, and techies are doing exactly that.

No, he’s saying that techies should not be separate from the political process.

Techies, as a general rule, do not like politics. Here is a problem, here is a solution, implement, boom, done. Next problem. Politics is so much arguing and posturing and creating compromises that benefit nobody, just because somebody is passionately mistaken about something.

Google famously did not fund a lot of lobbying in Washington until Microsoft pushed a bunch of anti-trust regulators at them. Now Google is one of the major organizations in Washington.

Sadly for San Francisco politics, a huge proportion of the techies are not allowed to participate, because they are not US citizens, and the self-inflicted harms of 9/11 are keeping a bunch of my coworkers from even getting green cards.

> Why would we do something that benefits far away humans over something that benefits nearby humans? Don't help those foreigners (or people in NY)! Build a wall! Trump 2016! (Same idea, just directed at a slightly different target.)

You've misunderstood his sentence. He's not saying that we should prefer fixing things locally to fixing things globally. He's asking why we should believe that the tech elite can improve life on a global scale when they can't even improve it on a local scale.

If that's the question, the answer is pretty clear: we should believe they can do it because they already have and continue to do it every day.

And in spite of what the author claims, there are even solving some political problems. For instance, observe how Uber has improved governance in most major cities. AirBnB seems to be taking a crack at it too: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/airbnb-is-...

> observe how Uber has improved governance in most major cities

Do you mean like how Uber bailed on Austin after a law passed requiring a basic, simple, background measure?

> Do you mean like how Uber bailed on Austin after a law passed requiring a basic, simple, background measure?

No, I think he means how Uber spends millions of dollars on ad campaigns to try to swing votes in their favour.

Not to mention showing consumers how governance could be better, and then daring politicians to go back to the old corrupt way of doing business.

Uber is making an example of Austin. Hopefully the rest of the world will learn not to go that way.