seen some ppl dunking on this clickbait headline & implying that robotic exoskeletons are bad..

one should be mindful of the difference between the technology itself (good or bad) & its role as a symbol that might highlight other problems one cares about

(thread)

robotic exoskeletons, as they improve & become cheaper, are probably going to have massive economic & social benefits

they will increase the physical capabilities of older & disabled ppl, boost productivity in stagnant sectors like construction, & expand the innovative frontier

at first glance there's no obvious reason why older ppl using exoskeletons to extend careers is worse than the alternative where the tech doesnt exist

maybe the alternative is poverty, or working less-preferred jobs, or being more financially dependent on family, friends or govt

at a national level, if a country like Japan is ageing rapidly then perhaps using tech to extend careers is beneficial,

or at least more preferred vs other approaches like trying to improve the dependency ratio w/ immigration or pro-natalist policy (not that these are exclusive)

the twitter dunks i've seen (reading them sincerely) gesture at roughly two possible harms of robotic exoskeletons, both highly speculative

• a race-to-the-bottom / moloch type dynamic
• damage to some heighten-the-contradictions theory of political change

on the first point, the idea is that any individual-level benefits from tech-extended careers will ultimately be wiped out in aggregate, as society shifts to a new equilibrium where everyone is expected to work longer (this being bad, according to the critique)

it's similar to the familiar sci fi scenario where drugs etc make sleep unnecessary, leading to, say, a 16-hour workday becoming normative

(i.e all the time savings from sleep requirements being technologically eliminated just get ploughed into work, instead of leisure)

needless to say, even if one grants that this scenario happening w/ exoskeletons is *bad*, it surely seems *unlikely*

at least on a speed & scale sufficient to make us seriously question whether the tech should be regulated or killed, given its obviously straightforward benefits

the second point is more clearly insane imo, essentially saying that older & disabled people should suffer more in order to galvanize public support for more robust social insurance benefits, labor market policies, or cultural change encouraging earlier retirement

this type of argument is always kind of intellectually enjoyable — how contrarian! — but if you think about it for two minutes it's just obviously reckless & grotesque

the benefits might never arrive & then you've just made everything worse. why take the risk?

stepping back, it seems like the essence of these dunks is that a novel & mediagenic technology is emerging that will likely improve elderly ppl's lives (as well as society overall),

but which won't *completely solve* certain pre-existing problems related to old-age poverty

set aside the object-level paternalism, the implicit discounting of the value of productivity & work, & the incoherence of opposing a novel tech while (one would assume) supporting health & medical care advancements that have functionally equivalent effects..

what ppl are doing is using exoskeletons as a symbol, or excuse, to talk about other problems

but the risk is that you drink your own kool-aid & psyop yourself into sincerely believing that the tactical qualities of your argument reflect their correctness https://twitter.com/antirobust/status/1269417923602288640?s=20