Your Take on Technology Advancement: Good or Bad?

[Mithrandir]

It seems like, in this day and age, we are raised in our culture with the presupposition that progression in technology is always better. This view implies that technology itself must be good in order for its progression to be considered better.

I've always seen technology as incapable of being good or bad. It only amplifies the extent to which humans can do destructive or constructive things. This, ultimately, is what my question is about. To what extent do you think humans should be allowed to wield technology? Is there a certain time period you think mankind should've stopped while they were ahead? Is convenience really that good of a reason to continue technological progression?

Here are some pros and cons to consider.

Pros:

• Global community - Since the widespread accessibility of the internet, we can now instantly share ideas and educate ourselves with people from all over the globe. It has become much easier for individuals to sympathize with other cultures than their own, if they choose to do so.
• Mass Electronic Media - We can instantly hear news from any part of the globe, and there are more and more news sources available.
• Advanced medicine and medical equipment - self explanatory.
• Advancements in energy - the storage and manipulation of energy has enabled mankind to create devices of convenience, assistance, and power. The use of machines has made slavery for manpower obsolete in advanced cultures (though slavery for other purposes still very much exists).

Cons:

• Global community - It is much easier to have superficial relationships with people over the internet than it is to have meaningful ones with the people in our real lives.
• Mass Electronic Media - It has become much easier for media to influence the masses, and harder for the individual to sift through the news sources to find credible ones. It has also formed, at least in America, a very image-based society, creating an environment where only leaders with the proper image can be elected, verses ones with the proper skill set and intelligence. An unhealthy obsession with image could very well be detrimental to our society.
• Advancement in weapon systems - It is much easier to kill people these days. The 20th century was by far the bloodiest century in the history of mankind, and not just in the sheer number of people killed, but in percentage of the global population killed in war-related activity (the actual numbers are quite shocking). We have discovered technology that is capable of wiping out the earth's population in a matter of hours and making the earth inhabitable for life.
• Advancements in energy - Our discovery and use of fossil fuels has had harmful, and possibly irreversible, effects on our environment. Our constant reliance on technology makes it less likely for us to survive in a situation without it. Since the invention of the light bulb, humans on average get much less sleep.

Your thoughts?

 

[Architect]

It seems like, in this day and age, we are raised in our culture with the presupposition that progression in technology is always better.

Because it is.

I've always seen technology as incapable of being good or bad. It only amplifies the extent to which humans can do destructive or constructive things.

So, the polio vaccine isn't inherently good? It has a bad application? I'm not aware of any such.

What about the development of pencils, paper and ultimately language? I guess we invented swear words too, or maybe those were part of the verbal Neanderthal lexicon too.

What about air breathers that help asthmatics, any bad application there?

The premise is flawed. Some technologies can be used for activities generally considered nefarious. Many, or perhaps most have no such application (credit cards? anti-lock breaks? digital movies?) and are only a benefit.

 

[Mithrandir]

So, the polio vaccine isn't inherently good? It has a bad application? I'm not aware of any such.

What about the development of pencils, paper and ultimately language? I guess we invented swear words too, or maybe those were part of the verbal Neanderthal lexicon too.

What about air breathers that help asthmatics, any bad application there?

The premise is flawed. Some technologies can be used for activities generally considered nefarious. Many, or perhaps most have no such application (credit cards? anti-lock breaks? digital movies?) and are only a benefit.

Whether technology is good or bad typically depends on the motives of the individual using it. Most medicines, which you would argue are inherently good due to their potential benefits, become poisons in higher doses. That is entirely up to the individual using it. Words and language definitely make it easier to communicate, but they can be used for manipulation, harm, defamation, or any other sort of nefarious activity.

Technology is a tool, like a hammer. It is very useful and convenient for hammering in nails, but can be just as useful or convenient for beating someone to death. Hammers are not inherently good just because they have an intended purpose.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Technological evolution is a part of human evolution.
It's not good or bad, it allows individuals to equip and adjust themselves to the changing enviroments.

Human body is a form of biological technology, a car is the mechanical extension of man's muscles.

It's not good or bad on the global scale, but usually is good for the individual that relies on it.

Progress occurs because it's held beneficial for those who desire it, later it is misleadingly explained that the individual had certain motives that helped achieve the progress.
Idealisation of progress is often irrelevant, as it simply is something found desireable by many scientists and investors and or beneficents.

 

[StevenM]

I guess the best way to find out, is to travel back in time, when things were more primitive, and live a life there. Compare the experience to current times.

Who's up to helping me build and set up the time machine?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Compare technology and the evolutionary advantage of sight.

There were pre-human organisms that didn't rely on a wide range of extensions that we enjoy today. For example, let's assume for the sake of argument that the lacking element would be eyes.

So there existed a race of socially adaptive beings that were very similar to us, perhaps our ancestors, that didn't see and yet they had enough other strategies and extensions to survive, hunt gather and build small communities.

So was it good that they developed vision over the milions of years? They were able to build bigger societies, kill more of their kind and become generally more efficient at what they do. It even would allow them to increase their population.

Was that evolutionary advantage good? That depends on the perspective.
One commonly acknowledged/presented perspective is the utilitarian one.
Looking at the large amounts of humans alive, we require newer technologies to allow greater access to everyday commodities and entertainment, we need to be really efficient with the limited resources we have here on earth, so that we can benefit the most from it and that's precisely what technology does and is also one of defining features of technology "more for less".

Generally speaking, if death is a misuse of technology, then technological advancement led to the explosion of population on earth, with not nearly as much humans losing their lives over technology, as the ones saved and living from it.

 

[Mithrandir]

Generally speaking, if death is a misuse of technology, then technological advancement led to the explosion of population on earth, with not nearly as much humans losing their lives over technology, as the ones saved and living from it.

So, on these terms, would you say that the risk of advancing technology will never outweigh the reward of doing so?

Also, from a utilitarian viewpoint, wouldn't overpopulation eventually be a serious problem considering the resources of the earth are limited?

 

[Analyzer]

I think the important issue is who controls technology. If individuals are more empowered by it than I would say it's better than worse. In this light you are just adding on to the productive capacity and advancement of society. Now if States or other criminal factions get a hold of technology it's worse. We have seen the effects of this like you mentioned in the 20th century through mass warfare and genocide.

Digital technology is still in it's early stages in general and it is yet to be seen how or if it will used in the negative sense. Surveillance seems to be a current issue. Ever heard of the Grey Good scenario? I wonder if humans haven't been able to find extraterrestrial life due to technology wiping them out. Of course I would guess that it was mostly controlled by certain factions like a State for this to occur.

In order to ensure innovation and the allow the market to direct technology for it to flourish, intellectual property needs to be abandoned or drastically reformed as an idea. Patents, trademarks, copyrights make it so technology ends up in the hands of the few like monopolies, neglecting individual empowerment. Ultimately this is what makes technology fall into the worse off scenario.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

So, on these terms, would you say that the risk of advancing technology will never outweigh the reward of doing so?

Also, from a utilitarian viewpoint, wouldn't overpopulation eventually be a serious problem considering the resources of the earth are limited?

The risk increases with the amount of energy relative to earth, this doesn't mean that humans should stop living because it's too risky, death and change are inescapable, no matter the risk.

Humans are equipped with reason which in itself is a part of the most advanced technology at our disposal : the mind. If we somehow end up destroying everything, this only means that we failed to evolve past that stage, as did many other organisms. Past that dangerous phase we are in and we could see humans modifying themselves directly to avoid their shortcomings. What is already the case with embryo screening and other technologies that are picking up.

It can be seen that on the more advanced/well-off societies, there is a great reduction in population growth rate. Examples such as Japan, Europe, urban areas, etc.
Some technology is required to aid in our overpopulation, most likely, education, maybe space colonisation, maybe genetic birth control. And when we will get to the stage where overpopulation kills us, it will be caused by natural uncontrollable human reproduction and still only leads to a scenario where no more life can be supported on earth without causing deaths directly, which is a 50/50 scenario and not some kind of apocalypse.

Similarly, a mold on a tomato, it could decide to grow in moderation to survive for the longest period of time(compared to humans it cannot, but it exemplifies that we have such capacity), instead it grows as much as it can and dies due to resource shortage. It still leaves some spores to begin growth with future opportunities.

I think the important issue is who controls technology.

I think the power disparity has remained quite constant over time, with few individuals having the most resources and many having little. Regardless of the time period we look at.

 

[Analyzer]

I think the power disparity has remained quite constant over time, with few individuals having the most resources and many having little. Regardless of the time period we look at.

The power struggle been a back and forth for the whole of human history, essentially a race. Certain periods have been more decentralized than others. When the Ancient Rome and Greek civilizations began it was fairly individual based with the advent of agriculture and as power became more concentrated, they expanded and ultimately collapsed. American history seems to be the same. It's a common pattern that I think deserves more examination than it does presently, especially with the increasing advancement of technology.

 

[Architect]

Whether technology is good or bad typically depends on the motives of the individual using it.

You sidestepped my point. Find a reasonable example of an evil use for pencil lead. Or chocolate chips. How about clean water? Before the early 20th century that was hard to get. It caused major plagues and disease in London for centuries before they figured it out. Any evil or bad use of clean water technology?

That's my point, your argument is a shallow view of technology, mentally cherry picking a few obvious examples. Which aren't even that obvious - take nukes. I used to have to listen to nabobs tirade on how evil the scientists were for developing nuclear weapons. Of course these idiots didn't bother to find out the reason - ending WWII - they developed the bomb. You'd say "nukes can be used for evil purposes' which is still sidestepping. In fact nukes have halted world wars. You don't think we'd be in WWIII with China or Russia if it wasn't for nukes? The Cold War would certainly have turned hot if we didn't have nukes.

Looking at 2000 years of technological development I see good, have a hard time finding much technology that was bad or was predominantly used for "bad" purposes.

 

[jussus]

Well I suppose I will put in my two cents in here now. I am of the belief that advancement is neither good or evil in it's own right it in itself is for the most part neutral. Since i believe it's the builder not the tool that decides how something should be perceived i'm not against advancement in itself. I mean in just one example we started using metals and we developed both weapons to kill each other like swords, but at the same time we developed tools to help us survive in our day to day lives. I am worried about the problems that advancement can cause because we are far from perfect beings but i also think as we advance technology it can help us to evolve ourselves and become better.

Although i feel like i should add that even do i worry about what can happen i'm more into observing, so even if things start to go bad i'd still continue. For example if i was god while I might do small interventions even if i saw technology would destroy humanity i would continue to watch it happen. So i don't really know how much you really wanna take what I said because overall i just see technology as a system that will keep expanding no matter how much we try so I've decided to just accept that and hope people keep it going in the right way.

 

[Mithrandir]

You sidestepped my point. Find a reasonable example of...

OK

Pencil lead - writing an abusive letter to someone. Heck of a lot easier than using a hammer and chisel.

Chocolate chips - I see chocolate chips as food, not technology, however the technology associated with them is making them and distributing them en masse. The mass production and distribution of sugary food seems like a sure-fire way to expedite rampant heart disease, which happens to be the #1 killer in the US for both men and women.

Clean water technology - This is rather non-specific, considering a boiling pot is considered "clean water technology." Of course, you're probably referring to the technology that enables us to produce and distribute clean water en masse. Yes, of course this technology is good when it's used for this purpose. But the same technology could just as well be used to produce and distribute something harmful, a common warfare tactic dating back millennia ("poisoning the well").

Nukes - There was another plan in place to stop WWII called Operation Downfall, in which General MacArthur estimated to Truman 30,000 American soldier casualties in the first 30 days, while the Joint Chiefs estimated upwards of 200,000 for the whole campaign. Instead, we decided to kill 150,000-250,000 Japanese civilians between the two cities hit with atomic weapons, half of the deaths occurring in the first day, with who knows how many sick and injured beyond. Were nukes effective at stopping the war? Yes. Were they necessary? No. We do not really know how many American troops we would have lost before Japan surrendered had we not used the bomb, but we certainly knew how many Japanese civilians would be killed or affected if we did. One thing is for certain though, technology definitely made the slaughter much more efficient and impersonal. I mean it took Hannibal the better half of a day to slaughter around 70,000 Roman soldiers with pointy things at Cannae out of pure spite, and he had to look them in the eyes.

Sure, nukes can be used as a deterrent....until they're used for something else. History has the tendency to repeat itself, just with shinier toys.

That's my point, your argument is a shallow view of technology, mentally cherry picking a few obvious examples.

I think you have a shallow view of my understanding of technology. I can see the good AND bad that technology can be used for. For some reason, you can only acknowledge the good and ignore the bad. In order for an attribute to be considered inherent, it must be justified by virtue of the objects existence alone. If the attribute can change under alternate circumstances, then it is not inherent. If technology that is intended for good can be used just as well for bad, then the "good" is not inherent, but assigned based on other criteria. The "good" or "bad" we assign to technology actually comes from an analysis of the intended use and its effects, not from its virtue of simply existing.

Technology is essentially efficiency. Whether efficiency is good or bad depends on what it's being used for. And furthermore, there are side effects to relying on machines to do work for us. How has that affected our self-reliance as a species? What would happen if that technology was somehow taken away? Intention and effect are the determining criteria here.

 

[Pyropyro]

I guess the best way to find out, is to travel back in time, when things were more primitive, and live a life there. Compare the experience to current times.

Who's up to helping me build and set up the time machine?

It's more efficient to simply visit the countryside and/or a developing country.

 

[k9b4]

Technology makes it easier to do things, whether for 'good' or 'bad'. I think developing new technology and understanding of our universe is always a desirable thing to strive for.

It isn't the nuclear bomb's fault for dropping on a city. A person dropped the bomb there. If nuclear bombs did not exist the person would probably find another way to destroy the city. Technology is not 'good' or 'bad', people are.

 

[Architect]

Pencil lead - writing an abusive letter to someone. Heck of a lot easier than using a hammer and chisel.

Bingo! You sprung my trap. That's a COMPLETELY CONTRIVED example. Sorry for shouting but I'm literally laughing my ass off. I half way expected you to say something like "You can stab somebody with a pencil" or "You can get poisoned by eating pencil lead".

You'd need much better examples than that, and they don't exist.

Chocolate chips - I see chocolate chips as food, not technology

Wrong - have you ever studied how chocolate is made? Have you ever tried making truffles? Ever wonder how that particular smoothness is achieved? What about the special surface that truffles have, the laminar plastic smoothness to it? To do it right takes a special machine and techniques - all technology.

a sure-fire way to expedite rampant heart disease, which happens to be the #1 killer in the US for both men and women.

literally rolling on the floor here ... I'm sorry, I'm not making fun of you, but it was too easy.

I'm stopping there, you're inventing ridiculous examples and the idea is shredded. You didn't even touch polio vaccine, because the it was too hard to even come up with a ridiculous example. And "water distribution" could be used to distribute something harmful? Like what, chocolate as they did in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?

Just for your education, forget water distribution for the moment. Just consider boiling water. Yes, that is technology. Show me another creature on this planet that has developed it. I'll also show you a number of inventors who are working hard to find ways to do just that - cheaply and easily find a way for Africans to "boil water" using new technology. And technology isn't just gadgets, it's ideas, process, or an approach. Maybe some country has too much combustable material. All sorts of ways to find a solution to that problem.

 

[Jennywocky]

Cons:

• Global community - It is much easier to have superficial relationships with people over the internet than it is to have meaningful ones with the people in our real lives.

I don't have time for a full review right now, but it's possible some of the list is overblown based on assumption.

For example, here it's assumed that people have two choices: meaningful relationships (real life) or superficial ones (online).

Aside from blanket-determining that online relationships are by definition more superficial than real-life ones, you also have the reality that, for some people, they wouldn't actually have real-life relationships if they didn't have any online ones; they would just remain isolated.

I think real-life relationships are good and can provide access to more facets of another person than online, there are some things online can't provide; but you can't assume someone would have real-life relationships (and necessarily better ones!) if they weren't investing in the online ones.

Bingo! You sprung my trap. That's a COMPLETELY CONTRIVED example. Sorry for shouting but I'm literally laughing my ass off. I half way expected you to say something like "You can stab somebody with a pencil" or "You can get poisoned by eating pencil lead".

You'd need much better examples than that, and they don't exist.

Hey, I was stabbed in the knee in second grade with a pencil by a classmate, and the graphite mark is still there almost 40 years later.

Pencil stabbing -- no laughing matter.

*tries to keep a straight face*

 

[StevenM]

Looking at the 'big picture' of technology, and not the specific details:

It seems that there has always been problems, and on top of that, technology to fix them. Which may have caused problems, but luckily more technology to fix those. It's almost like a problem has been laid like an egg, and out hatched technology, which in turns lays more problems.

As our area of knowledge grows larger, so does the area of our perceived ignorance. Which makes the pursuit of learning exciting, doesn't it?

 

[Mithrandir]

...I'm literally laughing my ass off...

You'd need much better examples than that, and they don't exist.

...literally rolling on the floor here ...

I'm glad you're at least getting amusement out of this since the chip on your shoulder in regard to technology is clearly preventing you from getting anything else.

Somehow, you hold that if technology is typically used for something good, it is therefore inherently good. This is non sequitur. All you need is one example to the contrary for this to be false, and the frequency of the example is irrelevant. It is entirely up to the user as to whether a technology gets used for good or bad.

Pencil lead was designed for communication and abusive communication is a common occurrence. Except nowadays we have more efficient ways to be abusive, like using word processors and insantly delivering them via internet. Heck we might as well make it available for their friends to see while we're at it.

That you don't see the mass production and distribution of addictive sweet food as dangerously contributing to heart disease, and even as humorous, is genuinely disturbing to me. There is very little nutritional value in a chocolate chip. But it sure generates pleasure. Good or not? Depends on how much you care about health and lifespan I suppose.

If I was attacking a country, at the very top of my list would be using their clean water apparatus against them. It would be way too efficient at causing harm not to consider. Then I'd probably hit them with an EMP (which can be done with a Nuke outside of the earth's atmosphere btw) to collapse the grid and watch the civilians tear themselves apart in the ensuing panic. Then comes the more traditional firepower.

You know that the polio vaccine isn't universally helpful, right? It can be quite harmful to those who are allergic.

"Usually" good does not equal "inherently" good.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think technology is inherently neutral and can contribute to both positive and negative shifts within a culture... sometimes simultaneously, especially in a diverse and complex society with competing needs, interests, and personality/ideological makeup.

Even medical equipment, listed as a positive, is a negative. Humans live longer, true, and in some ways that seems a good thing ("more life! Wheee!") Pretty amazing stuff happening -- bone healing with ultrasonics versus conventional casts, face reconstructions, artificial wombs giving birth.

But at the same time, the human body is in decline even while life is being maintained, and sometimes quality of life suffers tremendously. We also do not necessarily have the economic and social resources to accommodate the needs of a generation in physical decline, just because we can treat someone and keep them alive.

This is highlighted by comments I hear from friends with older parents. One yesterday told me both of her parents are in their 90's and waiting to die. Every day they wake up, saying, "Crap, I'm alive for one more day." Another day isn't necessarily a good thing. My grandfather lived until 95 but was blind, almost deaf, and couldn't take care of himself; he was happy when his heart finally gave out, but until then, our "advanced medicine" kept him trudging right along.

I'm glad my dad died at 71, he was suffered a gamut of health problems but had been saved at least once by medical intervention (when he really should have died) and lingered for another eight years and was miserable and made others miserable the entire time.

Medical treatment is a tool. We are capable of great things. But technology only answers the question of "how," not "why" or "whether we should."

 

[Mithrandir]

[/LIST]
I don't have time for a full review right now, but it's possible some of the list is overblown based on assumption.

For example, here it's assumed that people have two choices: meaningful relationships (real life) or superficial ones (online).

I didn't mean this as a dichotomy. The key word is "easier", which depends on the personality of course. But there is a natural detachment when engaging someone online that can be overcome, yes, but is there nonetheless. And many online relationships turn into real life relationships as well. One of the missing elements is meeting the physical needs of others. For example, when I have friends over, providing them a good meal can often speak more than words can. Other examples would include offering my coat when they're cold or bringing them medicine when their sick. There are parts of relationships that can't be expressed through words alone, and that's mainly what I was getting at.

 

[Jennywocky]

I didn't mean this as a dichotomy. The key word is "easier", which depends on the personality of course. But there is a natural detachment when engaging someone online that can be overcome, yes, but is there nonetheless. And many online relationships turn into real life relationships as well. One of the missing elements is meeting the physical needs of others. For example, when I have friends over for a meal, providing them a good meal can often speak more than words can. Other examples would include offering my coat when they're cold or bringing them medicine when their sick. There are parts of relationships that can't be expressed through words alone, and that's mainly what I was getting at.

Gotcha. And I agree that that is a "missing element" to some degree, although based on the people involved, it can be a larger or smaller piece. I'm hesitant to dictate across the board what kind of relationships will be the "best" for a particular individual.

For me in particular, for example, I've realized I now need a tangible component if the relationship is to deepen. I either didn't need this or wasn't able to take advantage of it earlier in my life, but especially after growing into a marriage and raising kids, now I find I miss actual tangible interactions and the simple act of being involved in the daily stuff of another person's life. Those things are good for me and help to "draw me out of myself" and provide avenues for closeness, comfort, and growth, and allow me to contribute such to others. Online, I mainly just share ideas or humor -- only two facets of who I am.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The power struggle been a back and forth for the whole of human history, essentially a race. Certain periods have been more decentralized than others. When the Ancient Rome and Greek civilizations began it was fairly individual based with the advent of agriculture and as power became more concentrated, they expanded and ultimately collapsed. American history seems to be the same. It's a common pattern that I think deserves more examination than it does presently, especially with the increasing advancement of technology.

Indeed the topic is worth many separate threads and the examination of personal freedom and inequality is and has been a point of attention for many scholars and thinkers.
What I wanted to mention with my previous comment was that the power disparity problems are rather disconnected from the advancement of technology, in that they occur at a stable pace during our history.

 

[Mithrandir]

Gotcha. And I agree that that is a "missing element" to some degree, although based on the people involved, it can be a larger or smaller piece. I'm hesitant to dictate across the board what kind of relationships will be the "best" for a particular individual.

For me in particular, for example, I've realized I now need a tangible component if the relationship is to deepen. I either didn't need this or wasn't able to take advantage of it earlier in my life, but especially after growing into a marriage and raising kids, now I find I miss actual tangible interactions and the simple act of being involved in the daily stuff of another person's life. Those things are good for me and help to "draw me out of myself" and provide avenues for closeness, comfort, and growth, and allow me to contribute such to others. Online, I mainly just share ideas or humor -- only two facets of who I am.

Yes it means something different when you have to hold in a fart while talking to someone. Oh the sacrifices we endure in real life...

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes it means something different when you have to hold in a fart while talking to someone. Oh the sacrifices we endure in real life...

^^ Yup, prime example of tech being a great opportunity for either goofiness or totall asshatery. (The jury's still out.)

 

[Mithrandir]

^^ Yup, prime example of tech being a great opportunity for either goofiness or totall asshatery. (The jury's still out.)

I was being serious in a goofy way, rest assured.

...was hoping someone would chime in with "of course it means something entirely different when you don't hold in a fart when talking to someone."

...am a little disappointed

 

[Jennywocky]

I was being serious in a goofy way, rest assured.

That's good. The tonal shift threw me, I was in "serious" mode and I don't know you yet.

...was hoping someone would chime in with "of course it means something entirely different when you don't hold in a fart when talking to someone."

...am a little disappointed

Give people more time. They're still debating whether it's offensive to let girls lead while dancing.

 

[Architect]

I'm glad you're at least getting amusement out of this since the chip on your shoulder in regard to technology is clearly preventing you from getting anything else.

Sorry, I get caustic sometimes. I don't have a chip on my shoulder but have been down this road personally. I used to believe as you do. It takes perspective (i.e. getting old) to see that technology always has been, for millennia, a force of good. There are examples and instances where has been used for 'evil' purposes (however you want to define that), but the point becomes obvious the more you contemplate mankind's place in a hostile universe.

But really, your examples are still contrived and fake. Just because some people are allergic to a vaccine doesn't make it "bad" - that's simply ridiculous. Reducto ad absurdum doesn't wash here.

 

[Mithrandir]

But really, your examples are still contrived and fake. Just because some people are allergic to a vaccine doesn't make it "bad" - that's simply ridiculous. Reducto ad absurdum doesn't wash here.

No, it makes its status as "good" or "bad" conditional, not inherent, which has been my entire point.

I don't think you actually know what I think about technology accept that it's not good or bad by default.

Don't worry, I've marked you down in the inherently good category. You've been heard, thank you.

 

[Cognisant]

Technology is inherently a good thing, it's only a problem when humans abuse it.

Spoiler

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Maybe this is just semantics but the terms 'good/bad' are value judgements. Value judgements only exist within a conscious being therefore inanimate objects (ie technology) can't have inherent goodness.

 

[Analyzer]

Maybe this is just semantics but the terms 'good/bad' are value judgements. Value judgements only exist within a conscious being therefore inanimate objects (ie technology) can't have inherent goodness.

Yeah your right. I think what the OP and others are saying is whether technology is good or bad based off an utilitarian premise of it's advancement.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I was responding to Cog's statement 'technology is inherently a good thing'.

It's easier to assess if a particular technology is 'good/bad' for a particular individual. My mother has never used a computer and doesn't want to because it would complicate her life unnecessarily and for her at this point in her old age, she desires simplicity.

I don't think we have a choice regarding technology. I'm taking the humanistic/psychological perspective. Humans will continue to advance technology because we can never go back, only forward. To be slightly Biblical (with no connotations of religion!), we ate of the fruit of knowledge that set us on a course to ??? Since we can't predict and know all consequences/effects, the only choice we have is to regulate and put constraints on ourselves/society to mitigate harm. Through this process of invention, societal use of technology, discovery of unintended effects, regulation and societal pressure to mitigate harm, and eventually the unintended problems are then used as the impetus for new technology and on and on it continues...It's a kinda of leap frog effect. Will this ever annihilate us? So far it hasn't but it could. You can't have 'good' without the potential for 'bad'. I say the question has no answer. We don't have a choice except to move forward. (determinism in action )

 

[Cognisant]

Value judgements only exist within a conscious being therefore inanimate objects (ie technology) can't have inherent goodness.

Lol the talking meat thinks it's self aware

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Lol the talking meat thinks it's self aware

Says the meat to the meat

 

[Teax]

It seems like, in this day and age, we are raised in our culture with the presupposition that progression in technology is always better. This view implies that technology itself must be good in order for its progression to be considered better.

technology=knowledge. a catalyst. it is transparent in respect to "goodness" whatever that is...

unless your understanding of technology is more shallow, like
technology=machines/tools

but you have to realize that:
machine = knowledge + intent.
the intent part is the injected "goodness" or "badness"

so you're asking if humanity should've stopped being a bunch of convenience maximizing, self destroying idiots? always.... the question has nothing todo with technology.

unless you believe humanity as a whole is inherently self-destructive and low-tech-ness is the only thing that keeps us from self-extinction - are you suggesting to consider technology as inherently "bad" from the perspective of society? like a crazy person in need of a straight jacket to not harm himself? IMHO even in that case technology would act as a mere catalyst to something that should naturally happen anyway.

 

[Mithrandir]

technology=knowledge. a catalyst. it is transparent in respect to "goodness" whatever that is...

unless your understanding of technology is more shallow, like
technology=machines/tools

but you have to realize that:
machine = knowledge + intent.
the intent part is the injected "goodness" or "badness"

Not quite.

Knowledge = Knowledge
Materials = Materials
Technology = Knowledge + Materials

Knowledge is required to turn materials into technology, and technology in turn can create opportunity to increase knowledge. Knowledge is an inseparable part of technology, but so is the material, because without the material, it just remains knowledge, just like material without knowledge just remains material. They're inseparable, 2 sides of the same technological coin.

Intent is part of the knowledge side of the coin, but you're leaving out effect, which is the material side of the coin. Intent and effect together are the criteria for whether it may be considered "good" or "bad".

But what we also need to factor is the difference in intent of design and intent of use, as well as the difference in intended effects and unintended effects. There is also the distinction of past, present, and potential intent and effects that can and should be factored. This is rather complex and not as clear cut as we would wish it to be, hence the impetus of this discussion.

The "injected" part is just one of many.

so you're asking if humanity should've stopped being a bunch of convenience maximizing, self destroying idiots? always.... the question has nothing todo with technology.

unless you believe humanity as a whole is inherently self-destructive and low-tech-ness is the only thing that keeps us from self-extinction - are you suggesting to consider technology as inherently "bad" from the perspective of society? like a crazy person in need of a straight jacket to not harm himself? IMHO even in that case technology would act as a mere catalyst to something that should naturally happen anyway.

I have not and am not suggesting anything. I asked questions to gather responses and have given examples to spur discussion. I agree, it is more of a question about humanity than it is technology, which I tried to make clear in the OP by saying

I've always seen technology as incapable of being good or bad. It only amplifies the extent to which humans can do destructive or constructive things. This, ultimately, is what my question is about.

But that doesn't mean the answer should only be about humans and not technology.

 

[Teax]

Intent is part of the knowledge side of the coin, but you're leaving out effect, which is the material side of the coin. Intent and effect together are the criteria for whether it may be considered "good" or "bad".

Im my post was: intent="material side of the coin" because intent=effect assuming a successful attempt. any unintended sideeffects are deemed acceptable by the user(often through ignorance), thus can be seen as implicitely intended.

But what we also need to factor is the difference in intent of design and intent of use, as well as the difference in intended effects and unintended effects. There is also the distinction of past, present, and potential intent and effects that can and should be factored. This is rather complex and not as clear cut as we would wish it to be, hence the impetus of this discussion.

I don't see an inherent intent of design . that is not to say that the designers didn't have an intent, but every tool, like a hammer, or an atomic bomb is devoid of intent in isolation. it is merely a manifestation of knowledge, a "cog without a system". calling it "material" is overstating it, because the idea of a machine(=just knowledge) or a disconnected but real one(=manifested knowledge) are indistinguishable as to the effect on the outside world, unless used. a machine only becomes 'complete' in a sence... once there is a use for it, once it becomes part of something bigger. hence intent fully determined by usage and fully encompasses "goodness", whatever that is.

I have not and am not suggesting anything. I asked questions to gather responses and have given examples to spur discussion. I agree, (...).

sorry, so did I ' in english language the word 'you' has a stupid double meaning... I was just rambling

 

[Cognisant]

so you're asking if humanity should've stopped being a bunch of convenience maximizing, self destroying idiots? always.... the question has nothing to do with technology.

Well put if there's a problem it's with human nature.

Recognizing we have a problem and that it is our problem not the result of some external cause is the first step towards "solving it", by which I do not mean merely coming up with a solution will fix things, rather as a species we need to change.

We're addicted to convenience.