You make an interesting argument and I agree that optimization and computers have been used to capitalistic ends and to exploit people for the profit of the few, with many historical examples available.
I object to the notion that any invention produced in a capitalist society must be designed to serve the unjust and unethical goals of that society.
Take insulin for example. Its discoverers released their patent cheaply in order for the world and common people to have unrestricted access. Despite this, American Medical Firms have intentionally restricted production and availability within that nation’s borders, ensuring they can profit grossly off of people’s need of it. It is clear that insulin itself is not the purveyor of unethical profiteering but the medical and insurance companies that have taken advantage of it, unlike the University of Toronto biologists who willed to bring health and longevity to humanity.
Similarly, I argue that computers and optimization are not inherently unjust, but such technological and mathematical principles are coopted by corporate interests in harmful ways to the common person.
The insulin example does not refute my thesis in particular.
Its discoverers released their patent cheaply in order for the world and common people to have unrestricted access.
This is technology in its decontextualized form…
American Medical Firms have intentionally restricted production and availability within that nation’s borders, ensuring they can profit grossly off of people’s need of it.
… And this is its long-term implications.
Even the conception of insulin is the product of modern medicine which concentrates on eliminating the side effects only temporarily. It is an artificial and unsustainable solution by my
standards that will inevitably lead to exploiting it for “wrong” objectives.
And mathematics are only objective and universal in appearance, but in fact they are (predominantly eurocentric) constructs.
Maybe my theory requires refinement and a bit more nuance, but I still stand by the general idea.
Again, while your theory is thought-provoking and I appreciate that. However I do fundamentally disagree with your theory even if we agree on conclusions.
I bring up insulin in particular, because the unaffordability and exorbitant pricing is a uniquely American problem, where unchecked capitalism is rampant. In countries with a properly functional healthcare system which is most of the developed world, insulin is widely available without having to extort people financially.
So no, it’s not a long term implication of insulin, it is the American for-profit healthcare system that has caused problems with access to its citizens. It may be an inevitability or context of late-stage capitalism, but I want to reiterate it is not of the insulin itself.
You appear to misunderstand what insulin is used for, it’s not pain relief. When a diabetic person cannot produce their own insulin, they can’t regulate their own blood sugar. It’s great that lifestyle changes can cure Type 2 (induced by unhealthy diets) diabetes but there’s no known cure for Type 1 (hereditary) diabetes, so symptom treatment is the best than can be done for that, Eastern and alternative medicine included.
Math, science, technology you portray as “eurocentric”, which has elements of truth in that during the enlightenment and industrial revolution there were major advances whose paces surpassed the rest of the world. It is also true that the roots of these subjects are drawn from India, China, the Middle East, Rome, Greece and others.
I will refrain from debating our initial topic (including the insulin example) any further since nothing of worth can progress the conversation. I thank you nontheless for taking interest.
“Surpassed” isn’t an accurate term; it implies that there exists an objective linearity in human development, which itself is a Western, modernist conception. The divergence in the values of different cultures leads also, more or less, to divergence in development.
It was a pleasant discussion. Regardless of what I think of its accuracy, it’s neat to see a new perspective of things and where that perspective comes from.
You make an interesting argument and I agree that optimization and computers have been used to capitalistic ends and to exploit people for the profit of the few, with many historical examples available.
I object to the notion that any invention produced in a capitalist society must be designed to serve the unjust and unethical goals of that society.
Take insulin for example. Its discoverers released their patent cheaply in order for the world and common people to have unrestricted access. Despite this, American Medical Firms have intentionally restricted production and availability within that nation’s borders, ensuring they can profit grossly off of people’s need of it. It is clear that insulin itself is not the purveyor of unethical profiteering but the medical and insurance companies that have taken advantage of it, unlike the University of Toronto biologists who willed to bring health and longevity to humanity.
Similarly, I argue that computers and optimization are not inherently unjust, but such technological and mathematical principles are coopted by corporate interests in harmful ways to the common person.
The insulin example does not refute my thesis in particular.
This is technology in its decontextualized form…
… And this is its long-term implications.
Even the conception of insulin is the product of modern medicine which concentrates on eliminating the side effects only temporarily. It is an artificial and unsustainable solution by my standards that will inevitably lead to exploiting it for “wrong” objectives.
And mathematics are only objective and universal in appearance, but in fact they are (predominantly eurocentric) constructs.
Maybe my theory requires refinement and a bit more nuance, but I still stand by the general idea.
Again, while your theory is thought-provoking and I appreciate that. However I do fundamentally disagree with your theory even if we agree on conclusions.
I bring up insulin in particular, because the unaffordability and exorbitant pricing is a uniquely American problem, where unchecked capitalism is rampant. In countries with a properly functional healthcare system which is most of the developed world, insulin is widely available without having to extort people financially.
So no, it’s not a long term implication of insulin, it is the American for-profit healthcare system that has caused problems with access to its citizens. It may be an inevitability or context of late-stage capitalism, but I want to reiterate it is not of the insulin itself.
You appear to misunderstand what insulin is used for, it’s not pain relief. When a diabetic person cannot produce their own insulin, they can’t regulate their own blood sugar. It’s great that lifestyle changes can cure Type 2 (induced by unhealthy diets) diabetes but there’s no known cure for Type 1 (hereditary) diabetes, so symptom treatment is the best than can be done for that, Eastern and alternative medicine included.
Math, science, technology you portray as “eurocentric”, which has elements of truth in that during the enlightenment and industrial revolution there were major advances whose paces surpassed the rest of the world. It is also true that the roots of these subjects are drawn from India, China, the Middle East, Rome, Greece and others.
I will refrain from debating our initial topic (including the insulin example) any further since nothing of worth can progress the conversation. I thank you nontheless for taking interest.
As for the eurocentrism of mathematics, there is an article that I’d recommend if it is of interest for you, “Western mathematics: the secret weapon ofcultural imperialism” by Alan Bishop.
“Surpassed” isn’t an accurate term; it implies that there exists an objective linearity in human development, which itself is a Western, modernist conception. The divergence in the values of different cultures leads also, more or less, to divergence in development.
Thank you, I’ll take a quick look at it.
It was a pleasant discussion. Regardless of what I think of its accuracy, it’s neat to see a new perspective of things and where that perspective comes from.