Or other pesky views like:

That among humans rich with agency, there's inevitably someone who can see the opportunity in restricting access to the unlimited supply of ice cream as a way to control others and reduce their agency.

There are billions of people with "agency" navigating an unfathomably complex and dynamic environment that gains shape by the collective results of their individual actions. It's really not so binary as pessimism vs optimism, agency vs passivity, humanity vs environment.

>That among humans rich with agency, there's inevitably someone who can see the opportunity in restricting access to the unlimited supply of ice cream as a way to control others and reduce their agency.

I think that is a real phenomenon, but different. The article seemed to focus on new technologies that are being brought into existence. It is one thing invent ice cream. It is another to figure out a mechanism to monopolize ice cream access.

If someone invents a new flavor of ice cream and monopolizes it, are they reducing the options available to individuals? What about if it is so good that nobody wants other flavors? What if the other flavors stop being made?

This more accurately captures my feelings than GP. I'm not worried about what _I'll_ do with tech. I'm worried about what the worst of us will do.

It goes further. Not only it doesn't matter what most will do with tech, tech itself doesn't matter, even in the worst hands.

Tech is irrelevant.

The problem is the combination of the people who want to abuse others, and the vast majority who allow it.

Or maybe better, the people who are willing to manipulate others, and the majority who are manipulable.

That problem exists regardless of tech and isn't created or even amplified by tech.

I say it's not even amplified by tech because techs power amplifying nature works for everyone. Every power tech gives to some asshole, it also gives to you and me to get around the asshole.

The only thing we can't get around is the complacency of everyone else who allows Amazon and WalMart to erase all the other shops. A douchebag figures out a button to press, like convenience and price, and most people happily just respond to that button without thought or resistance. And once enough of them do, the environment changes and no one else has any choice but to exist in the new worse environment.

The problem of most people not being skeptical and pessimistic and assuming the worst and rejecting shiny offers and propositions and ideas by default, resulting in them all being taken advantaged of and resulting in terrible systems that you and I have to live in, has always been, since there was no tech beyond mere language.

Well said. The author's argument is equivalent to saying advanced medical technology (or any advanced technology) is dystopian because it's in a bunch of scifi movies that happened to be dystopian.

Both sides are right, (mostly) about themselves.

One side has a basis in neuroscience[0], the other in a need to exploit naive optimism to make the stock go up.

[0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/592344/determined-b...

That is a very cynical take. Optimism and adaptation also have a basis in neuroscience.

Neuroscience does not mean that everyone does the most degenerate thing possible at every opportunity. There are people that don't eat themselves to death when presented the option.

There is also neuroscience behind discipline, self sacrifice, and every other positive virtue you can imagine.