Yours is a common argument which has a lot of merit, especially to quell naive youthful idealism. However I can't help but wonder if it really is so easy to untangle cause and effect, especially considering evolutionary incentives are also subject to change.
Consider we're not just already failing to build products that "just work", we're making it hard for users to make things work at all. There is obviously an incentive for that - Sinclair's law. However, imagine developers were actually incentivized to design beautiful, internally consistent systems, and expose their inner workings in an accessible way. How do you go from this proposition to the conclusion that everyone would have to become an expert in everything to do anything?
If everyone had access to the information needed to fix their problem using basic reasoning, but wanted to do other things, they could be able to find a nearby person who knows a little more and can help - as opposed to wasting time posting in support forums, waiting for customer support's non-answers, having to learn Google-fu to find if someone had the same issue, and eventually throwing the goddamn thing in the trash.
As an aside, I do have an axe to grind here; I did buy a pair of Bluetooth headphones the other day and, and do like chucking them in the bin even though they just work, just because I'm sick of being locked into yet another half-arsed wireless technology. I'll probably just give them to someone less demanding, because I don't want some landfill dwellers on the other side of the world inhaling my headphones. I've also reached the point when if anyone asks me for help with computers I recommend trying pen and paper instead.
Anyway, the fundamental distinction I'm trying to make is ternary:
- having to learn things that make sense (competency and proficiency are enjoyable), vs.
- having to learn things that pretend to make sense but don't (being good at those also feels good but I suspect is devastating to mental health), vs.
- outsourcing all of your learning and going on with your life (until the Morlocks eat you)
History in general feels very much like one of those over-engineered legacy systems where every change is slow and painful, and the current maintainers can only guess why things have ended up being in a certain way, and hope trying to fix them doesn't suddenly make them worse. If you only have pure human universals to deal with in your life, I envy you. Otherwise, you might need to acknowledge that a lot of the "demands of life" are simply arbitrary constructs that beg to be challenged, renegotiated, optimized.
Maybe everyone becoming an expert in Bluetooth configuration or whatever is not pleasant or desirable, but in my book it beats destroying our economy, species or ecosystem by a thousand small cuts.
Consider we're not just already failing to build products that "just work", we're making it hard for users to make things work at all. There is obviously an incentive for that - Sinclair's law. However, imagine developers were actually incentivized to design beautiful, internally consistent systems, and expose their inner workings in an accessible way. How do you go from this proposition to the conclusion that everyone would have to become an expert in everything to do anything?
If everyone had access to the information needed to fix their problem using basic reasoning, but wanted to do other things, they could be able to find a nearby person who knows a little more and can help - as opposed to wasting time posting in support forums, waiting for customer support's non-answers, having to learn Google-fu to find if someone had the same issue, and eventually throwing the goddamn thing in the trash.
As an aside, I do have an axe to grind here; I did buy a pair of Bluetooth headphones the other day and, and do like chucking them in the bin even though they just work, just because I'm sick of being locked into yet another half-arsed wireless technology. I'll probably just give them to someone less demanding, because I don't want some landfill dwellers on the other side of the world inhaling my headphones. I've also reached the point when if anyone asks me for help with computers I recommend trying pen and paper instead.
Anyway, the fundamental distinction I'm trying to make is ternary: - having to learn things that make sense (competency and proficiency are enjoyable), vs. - having to learn things that pretend to make sense but don't (being good at those also feels good but I suspect is devastating to mental health), vs. - outsourcing all of your learning and going on with your life (until the Morlocks eat you)
History in general feels very much like one of those over-engineered legacy systems where every change is slow and painful, and the current maintainers can only guess why things have ended up being in a certain way, and hope trying to fix them doesn't suddenly make them worse. If you only have pure human universals to deal with in your life, I envy you. Otherwise, you might need to acknowledge that a lot of the "demands of life" are simply arbitrary constructs that beg to be challenged, renegotiated, optimized.
Maybe everyone becoming an expert in Bluetooth configuration or whatever is not pleasant or desirable, but in my book it beats destroying our economy, species or ecosystem by a thousand small cuts.
TL;DR: "Specialization is for insects," anyone?