Technology and the poor
Self-selecting our own poverty
It was a brisk Monday in the nation’s capital. Not freezing, but cold enough to warrant a warm coat and a hot beverage. I weathered the five-minute walk between a parking garage and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to attend a half-day dialectic on technology policy.
The only thing more surprising than my attendance at a think tank luncheon was the eight or so homeless huddled in the front lobby with me as we waited to sign in. These older folks were so gregarious and giddy to be there—they had clearly done this before. And to my shock, no one was complaining about them, nor were security shuffling to get them out. They signed in, grabbed warm cups of coffee, and claimed a table.
Positioned at my far corner table, I had a panoramic view of our country’s not-so-subtle inequality. Most of us, including myself, could be considered elite: donning suits and professional dresses. We all gleamed with eagerness to listen and engage in a policy debate about how technology impacts the family and society. Meanwhile, the hungry, a few feet away, were patiently waiting for the promised sandwiches. Lunch was turkey and roast beef; the entertainment was the rich lecturing the rich.
I sat in admiration of the institution. Nothing speaks to the character of a person more than how they treat the most vulnerable. If nothing else impressed me that day, the institute had humbled me and won my gratitude.
However, there was one more detail to add to this rich canvas. In an effort to balance the predominantly anti-tech discussions of the day, AEI brought in Katherine Boyle, a partner from Andreessen Horowitz, to take the opposing viewpoint. The family, she posits, must protect itself from big government by allying with the tech industry: “All of history is a war between the family and the state.” The suspiciously Marxist overtone suggests that more technology is needed to safeguard the American family.
Women, Boyle argues, have been mired in the physical workplace since the advent of the industrial revolution. She says they require even more technology to bring work back into the home for good. Mothers need to hustle more, she contends, with fewer traditional jobs, more Etsy shops, and more followers: “A single influencer on Instagram can have a greater effect on behavior than the smartest…policies.” If only some of these homeless people in the room had the drive to become influencers or start Etsy shops!
It is plainly obvious to anyone who orders from (or works for) Amazon Prime, Uber, or DoorDash that the middle-class is shrinking—not growing—because of these vapid conveniences. Do American moms really need more part-time jobs and even longer screen time encroaching upon home life?
The topic of education bothered me most. Contrary to all available evidence, Boyle insists children need more technology and online learning: “Artificial intelligence is on the verge of fundamentally transforming how our kids learn.” Our kids are definitely being transformed. Facing the unprecedented rise in mental health issues and suicide rates in teens, it is reasonable to expect an increase in homelessness and mortality in the next two decades thanks to screen-mediated life.
Tools have lasting effects. Mediums change the contours of reality. When you prioritize convenience and efficiency over human worth, killing off the most vulnerable is just the price of doing business. Once presented, the cheaper, less desirable (and honestly less human) alternative molds society around it and poisons culture. The superior tools push less profitable habits to the fringes. What fifteen years ago was “the smartphone” is now a necessary component of life (the ‘social passport,’ as Brad Littlejohn terms it). Even those hungry folks were flashing old iPhones on their way in.
Today, AI tutors and nurses are enticing and novel. Tomorrow, the poor will be offered mental health solutions by chatbots because Medicaid cannot afford real human beings. How long before the public education system collapses and LLMs replace teachers? Do you really think the rich will ever use AI therapists or robot teachers?
These accelerationist fever dreams always come at the cost of basic human dignity. By hollowing out our skills and replacing them with appendices and prompt writers, we are self-selecting our demise. Those who elect to use the inferior (truly inferior, not slow in the tech sense) tools widen the divide between the have’s and have not’s. Think about how much more costly that rare human tutor will be when there are no more teachers.
Dystopian futures aside, I left the building that day with a head full of ideas and a big smile, wondering just one thing: where do those fine folks eat when these events are hosted on Zoom?