This comment seems to lack perspective. In countries where medicine is socialised, this technology wasn’t invented. Could it have been? Yes, absolutely. But in the reality we are faced with, it was invented with capitalist values. Now it can be assessed and potentially taken up by public health systems.
eldebryn@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m not saying that technology and progress is bad nor that we should stop pursuing it.
I’m saying that progress that only benefits 1% or less of the people doesn’t interest me.
If your innovation cannot reasonably exist without economic bubbles and worker exploitation, then it doesn’t deserve to.
Even if we found the cure to cancer tomorrow but it was so expensive and restricted that maybe 1000 billionaires alone could afford it I literally wouldn’t care for it.
The cost for achieving all that is exploitation. It literally worsens the lives of many, so that few can taste the fruits of advancement. I’d rather we discovered that cure 20 years later if it meant that 99% of us had better quality of life.
The rich want the opposite and try convince you and me and everyone else that this is to the benefit of humankind because advancement happen faster with capitalism.
I have no sources on that. But even if they do, I simply don’t care about it. It doesn’t benefit me nor anyone I know.
FishFace@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah I am also not particularly interested by healthcare which only benefits a tiny fraction of society.
However, when glasses were first invented they were only accessible to very few people. Technology tends to get more accessible over time as it is developed from a niche product to something for the mass market. So we can be cautious about the impact of these smart glasses, but still recognise that, for something that costs significantly less than a hearing aid and has hearing-aid like features, making life easier for people with hearing and vision impairments is in fact a key area where tech can help, is helping, and is recognised as such even in the world of big tech.