Technology is not enough

[K. A. Pital]

I see the point of the above.

It is a bit bigger than just "advances in technology make it possible for the economy to grow without the average citizen benefiting very much".

It is that the owners and pushers of technology knowingly spread technology-induced poverty, as long as it benefits them. And that technology is not a panacea from social problems, and by concentrating on technological advancement and ignoring the social, a very ugly future will manifest itself very soon.

These are all thoughts which are close to my own thinking, and they seem fairly obvious to the critical mind, but there's a lot of techno-optimistic people with rose glasses on. It might be much more useful for others than for people like me.

[Simon_Jester]

I suppose that's fair. A surprising number of tech-optimists seem to have completely forgotten just how much of modern society the cyberpunk writers predicted... And that cyberpunk was originally an exercise in dystopian fiction.

Okay. Yeah, the subject could have been talked about in a shorter amount of time.

As for the N&P thing: my apologies, it wasn't my intention to irritate.

It's mostly just that this is not exactly a shocking revelation or widely doubted among this particular forum community. And I'd like to avoid turning into the kind of bozo who instinctively goes "yay" and starts salivating a la Pavlov every time someone rings the "income inequality" bell four times in the same blog post. I'd hate to start automatically increasing my assessment of a person's intelligence just because of how repetitively they agree with me.

[Flagg]

When technology can provide IQ boosting genetic fixes and cybernetic implants it will be able to adress these issues more effectively.

Increasing IQ reduces petty criminality but doesn't make people less selfish. You would need to increase empathy and decrease sociopathy to do that.

One would hope that increasing IQ would also make the general public less susceptible to 'madness of crowds' and collective self-destructive behaviors that don't even benefit themselves as individuals. But the benefits, if any, do seem to be pretty subtle.

I've always viewed IQ as a measure of potential as much as it is a measure of intelligence. I mean my IQ when last tested was in the low 140's and I'm a high school dropout who did so well on the GED that I was awarded a high school diploma minus the college credits. But when I could work they were essentially dead end jobs. So I'm pretty smart (allegedly ) but never came close to reaching my potential. Granted, it was mostly due to mental illness but I still think it's a good example.

I also don't agree that having a high IQ makes you less susceptible to the madness of crowds or self destructive behavior (I'm a good example). For instance, intelligent people of sound mind are IIRC, more prone to joining cults.

But all of that said, if everyone had an IQ of at least 120 I think the world as a whole would likely be a better place.

[Flagg]

When technology can provide IQ boosting genetic fixes and cybernetic implants it will be able to adress these issues more effectively.

Increasing IQ reduces petty criminality but doesn't make people less selfish. You would need to increase empathy and decrease sociopathy to do that.

In general though the author has no perspective. Technology has been the enabler for social progress throughout most of civilised history; social progress follows along behind improvements in manufacturing, transport and communications. When it lags too far behind, things get particularly tragic.

I agree that "fixing" psychopaths and increasing empathy would make the world a better place.

But to suggest that technology is an enabler for social progress flies in the face of reality. The cotton gin made slavery in the US traitor states the backbone of their economy. The industrial revolution was built on the back of child labor in dangerous jobs where they were routinely killed and mutilated. And let's not forget the technological booms that happen during and after wars.

[Simon_Jester]

Technology is the sine qua non of many social advances, the "that without which, nothing else happens" element.

You can't have a meaningful democracy on a large scale without good enough communications to tie your society together and permit free flow of information back to the voters. You can't have meaningful freedom of movement without a transportation network that makes travel practical and reasonably safe and (ideally) reasonably quick too. You certainly can't have "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" without a technological society.

That said, saying technology is a necessary condition is obviously not the same as a sufficient condition. And technology is ALSO a necessary condition for many forms of tyranny, for the same reasons it's a necessary condition for many forms of freedom.

[Zixinus]

There is technology in countries that are a sham of a democracy or not even bothering being a democracy. Technology enables but itself does not make things happen. But society still has to change to make something like a democracy marginally work. It is not just when a technology appeared that it changed society, but those that would use that technology to change society if by nothing else but spreading the technology with a use in mind. Steam engines were made in ancient Greece and remained an esoteric curiosity utilized to the whim of the powerful. It was decided that steam engines were not needed when slaves were plentiful. But it was in 18th-19th century when they were rediscovered, its use sanctioned and then spread did they make a meaningful difference because it was decided that they were better than slaves.

Also, technology can be an enabler of bad things too, to make democracy a greater shim. Like in the case where voting machines were rigged. The authority told they were tamperproof except they were not. If the election officials want to tamper with the voting machines to get the result that authority tells them to give, it doesn't matter what technology you use. Likewise, with greater social changes. Technology itself doesn't do anything but help people do what they want to do, a multiplier. You still need people who are willing to DO a revolution to have a revolution happen. Facebook helps organize easier but didn't make it happen.

[K. A. Pital]

Technology is the sine qua non of many social advances, the "that without which, nothing else happens" element.

You can't have a meaningful democracy on a large scale without good enough communications to tie your society together and permit free flow of information back to the voters. You can't have meaningful freedom of movement without a transportation network that makes travel practical and reasonably safe and (ideally) reasonably quick too.

When social needs point towards something, then society develops a technology that allows such communication or travel to take place. Democracy as a concept was introduced in growing class societies (Greece, Rome), which did not have modern means of communication. The constant developments in that area are pushed by social needs - once social structures start growing bigger, the demand for faster communication inevitably lets several inventions try to take that niche.

It is only if the social structure has no demand for the technology, no matter the level, it simply won't "enable" anything. Much like mobile phones given to a hunter gatherer tribe, or like the remnants of Roman technology and architecture in the hands of barbarians - useless, and therefore used as a gag, often not with the direct intent of their original creators.

Just put somewhere a technology that's not needed by society and it won't enable anything. But once even the most primitive society starts developing and changing, it will itself bring forth a multitude of technologies to help along the way.

[Simon_Jester]

Since I literally already pointed out the extent to which this is a chicken and egg problem, I'm not going to bother typing up a multi-paragraph repetition of my earlier argument.

Seriously, "examples of A can be necessary conditions for examples of B" is not refuted by "But examples of B can cause examples of A!"

[Flagg]

Technology is the sine qua non of many social advances, the "that without which, nothing else happens" element.

You can't have a meaningful democracy on a large scale without good enough communications to tie your society together and permit free flow of information back to the voters. You can't have meaningful freedom of movement without a transportation network that makes travel practical and reasonably safe and (ideally) reasonably quick too. You certainly can't have "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" without a technological society.

That said, saying technology is a necessary condition is obviously not the same as a sufficient condition. And technology is ALSO a necessary condition for many forms of tyranny, for the same reasons it's a necessary condition for many forms of freedom.

True, I think I should have said "To suggest technology is an enabler for only positive social progress flies in the face of reality."

I very much view technology in the same way director James Cameron does. An essentially neutral thing that can be used for good, ill, and everything in between. An example would be the climax of the first Terminator movie where Sarah Connor uses a mechanical press (a machine) to finally destroy the Terminator (a machine) sent to kill her.

[Shroom Man 777]

Democracy wouldn't be as possible or as functional without the technological development of mass literacy, mass press, mass communications, etc.

Technology = bad because people get screwed is like saying food = bad because the enemy army was well fed and so the muscular troops beat the shit out of our starving famine'd villagers.

[SolarpunkFan]

Democracy wouldn't be as possible or as functional without the technological development of mass literacy, mass press, mass communications, etc.

Technology = bad because people get screwed is like saying food = bad because the enemy army was well fed and so the muscular troops beat the shit out of our starving famine'd villagers.

I think the op-eds are saying that technology is only as beneficial as we make it. Jaron Lanier has made similar claims about how "offloading our actions as the computer's actions" can be detrimental.

[Shroom Man 777]

I think the op-eds are saying that technology is only as beneficial as we make it. Jaron Lanier has made similar claims about how "offloading our actions as the computer's actions" can be detrimental.

Sure. Yes. If tech is applied myopically it can result in unforeseen problems. Factory machines built without intention for human safety can eat limbs or spew crap that'll poison the Earth. I think that can apply socially.

[blenkins90]

In all honesty, I think the point of this article is not actually about technology. It's about "responsibility".

You could easily rewrite the article with any number of "savior scapegoats", like religion, a powerful leader, etc.

It's this dangerous idea that "don't worry, someone/something will take care of everything for you so you don't have to." It's our responsibility to own our problems and solve them. Even when it's less worrisome to say "oh, Jesus/Technology/The President" will solve them.

People forget that someone has to create technology....

[SolarpunkFan]

In all honesty, I think the point of this article is not actually about technology. It's about "responsibility".

You could easily rewrite the article with any number of "savior scapegoats", like religion, a powerful leader, etc.

It's this dangerous idea that "don't worry, someone/something will take care of everything for you so you don't have to." It's our responsibility to own our problems and solve them. Even when it's less worrisome to say "oh, Jesus/Technology/The President" will solve them.

People forget that someone has to create technology....

IIRC that was the author's point. He did say:

I am tired of hearing that science and technology will save the world.

It is almost the same as saying “Jesus will save you!”

It evokes the very same passive quasi-religious hope that something or someone out there will magically solve all our problems, bring abundance in our lives, help us live forever and bring back the dead.

after all.

[Eulogy]

To be fair, we can prove that technology exists, and ergo it is a better thing to put our faith into.

[K. A. Pital]

To be fair, we can prove that technology exists, and ergo it is a better thing to put our faith into.

Deus Ex machina is a dangerous thought, though. It presumes a mechanistic resolution of social problems to be possible, and it avoids asking whether certain technologies are warping society in an undesireable fashion. Sure, technology exists, but unlike man or god, it does not have a good or malevolent intent, as it is not conscious. As something that exists, it does not need believers.