does this technology truly improve our lives?

In today's China, in 2025, we have witnessed numerous remarkable achievements in the field of technology: patent applications have topped the global rankings for 12 consecutive years, AI computing power accounts for 37% of the global share, and the Beidou system has successfully driven SpaceX's Starlink out of the Asia-Pacific market. China's high-speed rail has surpassed speeds of 600 kilometers per hour, the number of 5G base stations leads the world, and the number of AI patents far exceeds that of the United States. These "far-reaching" technological achievements should be a powerful force driving society forward and improving the quality of life for the people. However, the reality is filled with stark contrasts and helplessness.

Delivery riders are frantically rushing around under the strict demands of algorithms, white-collar workers are suffering from insomnia and anxiety due to the "35-year-old red line," and young people are struggling to find jobs. Companies are also struggling to survive in the face of intense competition and losses. Meanwhile, a well-known survey shows that the proportion of respondents who feel that their "life pressure has increased" has risen sharply by 23 percentage points in the past five years. This reminds us of the famous "Easterlin Paradox" in economics, which states that once per capita GDP exceeds a certain level, the correlation between income growth and happiness begins to weaken.

A deeper analysis of the data reveals that over the past decade, the growth rate of per capita disposable income in China has consistently lagged behind GDP growth by 2-3 percentage points. This indicates that while the economic pie is growing larger, the share that reaches ordinary people is shrinking. It is as if a high-speed train is racing forward, with the technological front leading the way, while the carriages carrying people's livelihoods are experiencing increasing turbulence and instability.

Beneath the dazzling light of technology, the lives of ordinary people are marked by deep "cracks of reality." A market vendor may not understand what the "metaverse" is, but she knows that community group buying has taken away 30% of her business. A delivery rider may not grasp the complex principles of "real-time delivery algorithms," but he feels the impact of having his delivery time reduced by 3 minutes per order. Their practical wisdom in navigating these challenges quietly deconstructs the grand narrative of technological progress.

While researchers in labs focus on testing millimeter-wave radar for autonomous driving, ride-hailing drivers have already figured out the "three-screen method," juggling orders from three different platforms simultaneously. This grassroots version of "distributed computing" better illustrates the struggles of survival in China than any algorithm. Companies replace human customer service with AI to cut costs, but users are forced to invent "curse scripts" to reach a real person. Hospitals introduce AI consultations, but elderly patients who are not tech-savvy now need companions to help them see a doctor.

Technology was supposed to make life more convenient, but now people must rely on more primitive methods to cope with daily challenges. This raises serious questions. While technology has created immense wealth, it has failed to establish a corresponding distribution mechanism. People expected technological progress to make society more equitable, but the reality is quite different. Automation, AI customer service, and smart factories have significantly improved corporate efficiency, but they also pose a significant risk of unemployment for ordinary people. In the United States, the automotive industry has already seen 500,000 jobs replaced by robots, and an estimated 3.5 million more jobs are at risk in the next decade. In China, delivery riders, couriers, and assembly line workers face the same uncertainty.

The internet has created numerous wealth-generating opportunities, with figures like Elon Musk amassing fortunes exceeding $4 trillion and Chinese internet giants achieving market valuations in the trillions. However, for ordinary people, the wealth generated by technological progress seems disconnected from their reality. Meanwhile, the pressures of housing, education, and healthcare continue to weigh heavily on them. While technology has made certain aspects of life more convenient, the costs of buying a home, seeking medical care, and raising children remain overwhelming. A white-collar worker in a first-tier city earning 300,000 yuan annually may still struggle with mortgage payments, and a rural family can be financially devastated by the cost of sending a child to university.

The result is that a few individuals soar to great heights on the "rocket" of technology, while the majority struggle to get by on the "public bus" of life. This is not a failure of technological progress itself, but a consequence of distribution systems that lag far behind the pace of innovation. In this distributional dilemma, the "majority" is often forgotten. Parents in Beijing's Haidian district spend 100,000 yuan annually on tutoring for their children, while children in rural areas rely on donated tablets for online classes. As AI teachers gradually replace human tutors, the already slim chances of upward mobility for disadvantaged students are further diminished.

Advanced surgical robots are introduced in top hospitals in Shanghai, but county hospitals struggle to maintain basic equipment like MRI machines. The rapid iteration of technology exacerbates resource disparities, much like how the latest cancer drugs are always first available in developed regions. Livestreaming e-commerce has created 20 million flexible jobs, but less than 10% of these workers have social security coverage. Middle-aged workers laid off from factories face age discrimination when trying to transition to new roles like delivery riders.

Sociological perspectives confirm that the faster technology advances, the more fragile individual livelihoods become. As GDP soars, people's lives seem to be in a state of "chronic blood loss." Nobel laureates in economics have found that once per capita GDP exceeds $10,000, the marginal utility of each additional dollar of income decreases by 50%. This is because people are trapped in a comparative prisoner's dilemma, where a colleague's new Tesla or a neighbor's child attending an international school makes a white-collar worker earning 20,000 yuan a month feel like a pauper. Time poverty is also increasingly evident, with Didi drivers working 14 hours a day and programmers working non-stop to meet project deadlines. Technology saves time but also enslaves people to it. The emptiness of meaning further erodes people's spirits, as young people question the value of "struggle" when they see livestreaming hosts earning in one night what their parents saved in a lifetime.

Ironically, companies that are early adopters of AI technology report a 17% increase in employee depression scores, indicating that while we gain efficiency from technology, we lose the battle for humanity. Therefore, reconstructing the "algorithm" of the technological age is urgent. We must ask: can we initiate a redistribution revolution that allows the benefits of technology to truly reach the masses? For example, imposing a "data tax" on algorithmic platforms to subsidize gig workers like delivery riders and ride-hailing drivers, or including patent inventions in state-owned enterprise evaluations to encourage investment in areas like affordable cancer drugs. Establishing a "technological inclusivity" mechanism could ensure that advanced technologies are accessible in both rural Guizhou and urban Shanghai.

We must also consider reshaping social values, moving away from a sole focus on GDP growth and incorporating "resident happiness index" into performance evaluations, as seen in Hangzhou's "happiness assessment system." Encouraging "livelihood technologies" that prioritize practical improvements over disruptive innovations, such as smart upgrades for community markets, may be more urgent than developments in the metaverse. Restoring "labor dignity" by providing tax incentives to companies that offer social security to delivery workers could have a greater impact than promoting unmanned delivery services.

Our ultimate goal is not just the miracles created by technology, but a better quality of life for all. GDP growth is not the end goal; ensuring that every ordinary person can live a good life is the fundamental objective of social development. Technology can lead the world, but distribution systems must keep pace. Otherwise, even if we lead the world in data, we may lose the battle for people's hearts. The next time we see news about "China leading the world in another technology," let us ask: does this technology truly improve our lives? If the answer is unclear, we must deeply reflect on whether true technological leadership means enabling 99% of people to live with more dignity and humanity.