taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/11/86)
This article is from taylor@hpldat (Dave Taylor)
and was received on Fri Jul 11 12:03:06 1986
I'd like to comment on a point Henry Spencer makes in a previous
posting (just posted, so this'll be as new as that!).
Henry says "To repeat the point: technology is *neutral*"
I can't agree. This presupposes that there is a sort of 'perfect universe'
that we're attempting to acheive through our creations.
The problem with this is that it's the same sort of idea that solipsism is,
or the "what if we were created 60 seconds ago with all our memories intact"
paradox - they're non-sequiturs. That is, we can't really ascertain the
truth of the statements, so we must either accept that they could be an
alternative reality (so to speak...more in a 'sec) or go mad trying to
disprove them in the process.
It insinuates that there must be alternative "universes" where objects
aren't intrinsically an element of the larger whole. We live in a world
where society, culture, and environment interact, however, and cannot
ignore it.
Objects *cannot* be considered without considering what they are being
utilized for, the materials they are made from, the moral and ethical
ramifications of their use, and so on.
That's what gets me about a lot of the military rhetoric - phrases like
"well sure this is actually an anti-personnel grenade, but I'm more
interested in the physics of the problem..." are ridiculous, and worse,
are indicative of a divorcing of object and environment/culture/society
that Henry is referring to.
As Arnold Pacey says in his very interesting book "The Culture Of Technology"
(MIT Press, 1983);
"Thus in the world at large, it is argued that technology is
'essentially amoral, a thing apart from values, an instrument which
can be used for good or ill'. So if people in distant countries
starve; if infant mortality within the inner city is persistently
high; if we feel threatened by nuclear destruction or more insidiously
by the effects of chemical pollution, then all that, it is said, should
not be blamed on technology, but on its misuse by politicians, the
military, big business and others"
"So is technology..neutral? If we look at the construction of a
basic machine and its working principles, the answer seems to be
yes. But if we look at the web of human activities surrounding
the machine, which include its practical uses, its role as a status
symbol...the skills of its owners, the answer is clearly no. Looked
at this second way, technology is seen to be a part of life, not
something that can be kept in a separate compartment. If it is to be
of any use [it] must fit into a pattern of activity which belongs to
a particlular lifestyle and set of values."
He probably makes the point better than I do, but the sentiment is the
same, namely that we cannot view technology independent of the culture,
society and environment that it is a part of.
["Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" has some interesting things
to say on this topic too...]
I welcome opposing views...
-- Dave Taylortaylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/15/86)
This article is from Ron Pfeifle <tektronix!watmath!watdragon!rfpfeifle> and was received on Mon Jul 14 21:19:25 1986 I don't know--I might have a very naive view of things--but I must say that I both agree and disagree with your perception of the "nature" of technology. Certainly, any item used by human beings (computers, rocks, even ideas) looses any "neutrality" it might have possessed when pressed into use by humanity. This results simply because the "object" is being used to some *purpose*, and this purpose defines the nature of the object in this context. Even an atomic bomb can have non-military applications (although they may be far-fetched; perhaps to persuade an asteroid in the (far?) future to leave our planet alone). At any rate, certainly the object itself has no "goodness or badness," even though it is easier to use some things for destructive purposes than constructive. An aside--let's assume for the moment that we've developed a thinking machine (I see those flame jet's firing up now), and that we "program" it to be "bad". Is it the machine that's "bad," the "program," the instance of the program on the machine at the the machine is running, or is the whole thing neutral and the programmers are really the baddies?... Ron Pfeifle, Lowly UnderGrad University of Waterloo, ....watdragon!rfpfeifle (I hope that that's enough pathname...)
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/17/86)
[Note: this article is a test of a different header format. If you see any problems with this, please send a copy of the ENTIRE header to me via email. Thanks. -- Dave] > I'd like to comment on a point Henry Spencer makes in a previous > posting (just posted, so this'll be as new as that!). > > Henry says "To repeat the point: technology is *neutral*" > > I can't agree. Well, I can't really see that your argument following is in conflict with what Henry was getting at. You are reacting as though he had said "the effects of technology are neutral", which he didn't say. To paraphrase, I think Henry said "you can't evaluate the impact of technology without looking at how it is used". You replied, in essence "you can't evaluate the impact of technology while looking *only* at how it is used". Well.... you are both right. But so what? All Henry was getting at was that technology *in* *and* *of* *itself* cannot be termed either good or bad, in that it doesn't universally lead to good results, nor does it universally lead to bad results. You didn't say anything that contradicts that point, unless I missed it totally. Note that your central argument, which I take to be: > Objects *cannot* be considered without considering what they are being > utilized for, the materials they are made from, the moral and ethical > ramifications of their use, and so on. strongly *supports* Henry's position (as well as your own). It shows that the "objects" produced by technology cannot be classed as "good" or "eeeeevil" without considering how they are used, and the impact their use has. If from this agreement we three seem to share you conclude that technology is not neutral, then as Arthur Dent might say, "this must be some use of the term 'neutral' with which I am not familiar". To conclude, a semi-serious mini-flame: Aaauuuggghhh! Why does everyone say "utilized" when "used" will do just as well, and is less silly-sounding? The recent overuse of "utilize" is enough to give a sensitive person ulcers! Why, it's as bad as the Pentagonspeak and Governmentspeak that flourished in the Nixon years! I suppose I should be grateful that this is a mild case of the infestation, and you didn't say "ramifications of their utilization"! It's those cursed word processors, I bet! :-) (Actually, I think that word processors are dandy for turning things like "what they are being utilized for" into things like "how they are used". But maybe folks who don't like them get things like that "right" on the first try. (I think WPs are neutral too, BTW.)) -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/19/86)
This article is from seismo!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka and was received on Sat Jul 19 05:01:44 1986 I am inclined to say that "good" and "bad" are applicable to an object whenever it acts on its own. If a bulldozer spontaneously starts up and levels half of Manhatten, the bulldozer is itself bad. Of course, it does no good to "blame" or "punish" it; it has no understanding. A sentient computer [program], on the other hand, does have such an understanding, and it may well be appropriate to treat it much as one treats a human criminal if it behaves badly. I'm not going to get into whether to blame the program or the machine -- this is a more appropriate topic for philosophy. However, blaming the computer does not let the programmers off the hook: responsibility is infinitely divisible without diminuation. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108