Role of technology?

nihili · Mar 29, 2003

What is technology? Is it a set of hardware? A socially implemented practice? Something else? Is technology value neutral or are some technologies inherently good while others are inherently bad? What is the proper role of technology in our lives? Is technology the answer to all our problems as Bucky Fuller seemed to believe, or merely a way of alienating us from ourselves as Heidegger suggests? Has technology taken to big a place in our modern lives?

Malpine Walis · Mar 29, 2003

If you have not already, I would suggest that people read "Being Digital" by Negroponte. While the work is a few years old, it is by no means outdated.

The premise of the work is that while technology will become increasingly dominant in our lives, it will also become less visible. In Bucky Fuller's day, there were still big problems that were easily solved by brute force technology. However, the technology of that day is almost done. For example, the internal combustion engine is (in the case of hybrid vehicles) almost as efficient as it will ever be.

As far as the question of whether technology is neutral or something else, the people who make technology are the real issue. IMO, I am fine with the existence of nuclear weapons. The only time they have ever been used in war, they in fact saved more lives than the alternative.

Again, thank you Nihili

PCphreak · Mar 30, 2003

Technology was never intended to retard rather than advance. This is logical. Why? Because of time. Time will only advance, & never retard.
Advancing technology is the human's only "weapon" against the unknown future. Tomorrow always brings a new, unknown challenge that must be countered. Therefore, Technology is our answer to any of our problems. Technology is a tool though- It must be used correctly and responsibly. "It's the person that kills the person; not the gun".

-PC

Omega Destroyer · Mar 30, 2003

To me, technology means progression. The development of better tools, and techniques to accomplish the same goals, or goals that were previously unaccomplishable. It is good, in that all technology serves it's purpose (ie to advance), but sometimes it is the purpose that is wrong. So the question of whether it's a good thing or not depends on the purpose. The technology is definately good

Valid · Mar 30, 2003

Assuming time only advances and doesn't retard will get you in trouble in certain philosophical circles. However, I do agree that technology is an advancement.

If you'd like a book that covers this in a fairly good way, yet has a much greater story to tell, you should read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Pirsig.

PCphreak · Mar 30, 2003

nihili said:
Has technology taken to big a place in our modern lives?

Modern. Modern describes anything that could later be considered obsolete. Technology is what makes a modern life modern. As far as I'm concerned- in a modern life, technology can never play too big of a part.
In a simple life, it (technology) could. And if it did, then it wouldn't be simple anymore.

-PC

nihili · Mar 30, 2003

PCphreak said:
Technology was never intended to retard rather than advance. This is logical. Why? Because of time. Time will only advance, & never retard.
Advancing technology is the human's only "weapon" against the unknown future. Tomorrow always brings a new, unknown challenge that must be countered. Therefore, Technology is our answer to any of our problems. Technology is a tool though- It must be used correctly and responsibly. "It's the person that kills the person; not the gun".

-PC

Why is technology our only weapon? What about moral values? What about courage and commitment? And why must these unknown challenges be countered?

Remember, humans have been around for a long time. While our lack of physical prowess does require some technology (Kapp posits that alla technology is organ extension), we got by for millenia without anything like modern technology. It's really only the last few hundred years (less than a millenia at any rate) that technological advancement has taken such a place of honor.

Remember that technology creates problems as well as solving them. And in the end, sometimes the low-tech solution prevails. The current international situation is a good example. The US may prevail in Iraq because of superior technology, but without the fairly high level of technology require for bio/chem weapons, we probably wouldn't have the Iraqi problem in the first place. Furthermore, it is likely that no amount of superior technology will thwart a determined suicide bomber from accomplishing his mission.

Beyond that, what argument is there for the assumption of value neutrality of technology? Part of this goes back to the question of what technology is. If technology is just hardware, then there's a reasonable assumption that it's value neutral. But a lot of theorists (actually almost all) think that technology is actually more than just hardware. Instead, technology is a social practice surrounding hardware of some type. After all, if you drop a computer into the 9th century, they don't suddenly gain computer technology. In order for a particular assemblage of silicon and copper to constitute a technology, there has to be some practice of using it. Without that practice, you just have a lump of stuff. But once technology includes the practice, then you lose the easy assumption of value neutrality.

MOAB (the bomb) is just a hunk of matter. Considered as a hunk of matter it is value neutral. But that ignores the fact that it is a hunk of matter that occupies a precise place within the social practice we call war. It is, after all, a bomb. And bomb are not mere hunks of matter. They are things that are to be dropped on others with the intention of killing them. Seen in that light, we've already decided that some technologies are immoral. We've decided that biological weapons are immoral for example. Notice, it's not biological research that is wrong, it's biological weapons. But being a weapon is a matter of how something is used, what it's place is in the social framework, not just a matter of what it's physical makeup is.

PCphreak · Mar 30, 2003

Valid said:
Assuming time only advances and doesn't retard will get you in trouble in certain philosophical circles.

Death is a function of time. Death will always be certain to life. In order to have death, an advancement in time has to happen. Therefore, time will always advance.

-PC

PCphreak · Mar 30, 2003

nihili said:
Why is technology our only weapon? What about moral values? What about courage and commitment? And why must these unknown challenges be countered?

The definition of 'Technology' is the application of science. Applying it to do what? Achieve an objective.
Application is the verb. Moral values, courage and commitment affect the way you apply technology. I don't see how these alone, without technology, will achieve any objective requiring science. Science being knowledge of principles and causes.
So, maybe I'm confused on exactly what your asking...

we got by for millenia without anything like modern technology. It's really only the last few hundred years (less than a millenia at any rate) that technological advancement has taken such a place of honor.

Time has to pass to accumulate knowledge. Why this relationship has not been linear is beyond me. So, then what variables play into the rate of gathering knowlege? You know, the bible speaks of a great burst of knowledge in the prophecies.

Remember that technology creates problems as well as solving them. And in the end, sometimes the low-tech solution prevails. The current international situation is a good example. The US may prevail in Iraq because of superior technology, but without the fairly high level of technology require for bio/chem weapons, we probably wouldn't have the Iraqi problem in the first place. Furthermore, it is likely that no amount of superior technology will thwart a determined suicide bomber from accomplishing his mission.

Low tech, High tech. These terms don't mean one is better than the other- just that one way is newer than the other.
But, your right- sometimes the older way of doing things is better than the newer way of doing things.
New or old- technology still has to be used responsibly. Iraq isn't being responsible with it, and that's why the U.S. military is there. Not because the bio/chem weapons merely exist.
I agree with you on the suicide bomber- but again, that goes back to the older way sometimes being a better means than the new.

donny_paycheck · Mar 30, 2003

nihili said:
What is technology?

A socially implemented practice

We can learn all we want through science. Technology is our gathered knowledge applied to our lives in order to improve them.

Science is ubiquitous, as in weather patterns and ant colonies. It's a human regimen for explaining inevitable happenings in our world.

Technology is the process of taking knowledge gleaned from scientific objectivism and applying it to processes to best suit ourselves.

Science explains our world. Technology changes it to better host us.

It's 0300 here. I apologize.

krag · Apr 1, 2003

nihili said:
Why is technology our only weapon? What about moral values? What about courage and commitment? And why must these unknown challenges be countered?

Remember, humans have been around for a long time. While our lack of physical prowess does require some technology (Kapp posits that alla technology is organ extension), we got by for millenia without anything like modern technology. It's really only the last few hundred years (less than a millenia at any rate) that technological advancement has taken such a place of honor.

Remember that technology creates problems as well as solving them.

Interesting, tell me some more about how "moral values" can be used as a weapon or used to solve problems as technology does. I like the idea of thechnology being an "organ extension"...it makes alot of sense...claws, larger containers, better visuals, etc...

Yes, i do believe that technology does create some problems...but it also solves quite a few as well. I for one am so glad that I live in the era of antibiotics and flush toilets.

But...at what price? How much does this type of advancement cost humanity? I am thinking of the amount of medical knowledge that was gained from World War 2...especially the captured Nazi medical scientists and thier data that the Allies confiscated after the war. Or even the Nazi scientist Verner VonBraun who helped America get to the moon with the design of the Saurn 5 rockett. Was the gain in thechnology worth it? Were lives saved? I don't really know how to answer that question....except with "yes & no."

nihili · Apr 1, 2003

krag said:
Interesting, tell me some more about how "moral values" can be used as a weapon or used to solve problems as technology does.

Take a look at the how India got it's independence. It wasn't via technological superiority. India is a particularly good example but history is full of stories in which a battle is won by courage and tenacity rather than technological superiority.

I'll grant you that there are certain problems that are more amenable to technological solutions than other kinds. However, to insist that these are the important problems may already betray a bias in favor of technology. After all, why should living longer be preferable to living with greater humanity and dignity?

Movax · Apr 1, 2003

Technology is the application of science for profit. Nothing more.

donny_paycheck · Apr 1, 2003

Movax said:
Technology is the application of science for profit. Nothing more.

So did Sir Alexander Fleming invent penicillin for mere profit alone? Tens of thousands of lives were saved in WWII thanks to antibiotics, and millions since. Yet Fleming did not receive much in the way of monetary compensation for his work.

Although I wholeheartedly support selfish pursuit of advancements in the name of greed (since it will always generate greater results) inventors, the people that develop technology at its inception, most of the time do not profit from their work.

krag · Apr 1, 2003

nihili said:
Take a look at the how India got it's independence. It wasn't via technological superiority. India is a particularly good example but history is full of stories in which a battle is won by courage and tenacity rather than technological superiority.

I'll grant you that there are certain problems that are more amenable to technological solutions than other kinds. However, to insist that these are the important problems may already betray a bias in favor of technology. After all, why should living longer be preferable to living with greater humanity and dignity?

Indeed, moral values ie. "courage & tenacity" have strong influences upon others and persuade them along certain movements to overcome social problems but how does that replace tecnologys role in serving man to overcome other problems? Such as higher crop yeild in agriculture and the increasing ability to communicate with others just like we are doing now over the internet?

I do heartily agree with you Nihilli about humanity & dignity should win out over length of life. Its quality not quantity, or least ways thats my personal opinion.

But if technology and moral values are weapons? What is the target? What is the enemy? Problems in general? Or chaos? Or life? Lets define what the target is first.

I think the target is problems; does anyone else agree or do you disagree?

Working definition:
To my understanding, technology is an attempt by man to influence his environment for exploitation (devise a way to benefit from it) by creating objects or solutions to overcome the problems that man encounters in life. This "creativity" is directly tied to the indwelt drive for "self preservation."

Ok...now you can hack it apart.

This is a very interesting/fun thread.

krag · Apr 2, 2003

Movax said:
Technology is the application of science for profit. Nothing more.

Hmmmmm..... I have seen chimps use "technology" on the science channel by running thin sticks into the holes of termite mounds, knowing that the termites will categorize it as an intrusion/threat and clamp on to it as a definsive move. They then pull the termite laden stick out of the hole and eat the tasty little morsels one by one.

Soooo......is man the only creature that uses technology? {scratches me head}

When you say profit, do you mean in a corporate sense as in major modern corporations or do you mean "profit" as in the one using the technology will "benifit" from it?

If you mean "benfit" I would agree with you, because we all want to use some thing "that works" or gets the job done, right?

Movax · Apr 2, 2003

In today's word technology is generally driven by profit and corporations. Practical application of science = TVs, DVDs, CPUs, Microwave ovens...etc etc etc.

There may be a few things that aren't originally intended for profit exactly but that is rare and usually changes quickly. Not that it is an bad thing; technology would advance a lot slower if it wasn't like this.

And do you really think that poking a stick into the ground qualifies is an application of science?

krag · Apr 2, 2003

Movax said:
And do you really think that poking a stick into the ground qualifies is an application of science?

Pure and simple....it is a tool that has been devised as a means to overcome a problem....the problem being...how do I get the termites out of the hole? The chimps could have smashed the mounds with thier fists and then picked the termites out one by one with thier fingers from the rubble of the mound....but they didn't...they used technology...they used a "tool" that they had created. Not a thick stick, not even one that had leaves or branches on it (they had stripped it "modified" for this particular application) but one that would overcome this problem of getting the food out of a difficult place.

Is it an application of science? Yes, I believe it is. Although I am sure that the chimps don't realise that they are actually using science or thechnology for that matter. They are using "something that overcomes a problem" that they have "created a tool" through an avenue of science. This avenue of science is "observation & experimentation." I don't know how they would have come across the use of the tool maybe they observed it happening in the wild somehow or it could even be instinct but it works, they benefit from it.

pauldriver · Apr 2, 2003

Technology = knowledge applied in achievement of an endeavor.

Technology is not a tangible thing, as is commonly misconstrued. Rather technology is a collection of knowledge, applied to the achievement of a goal.

Materialism (the endless quest to control more stuff then the other guy) is rampant in western culture, and spreading quickly to the rest of the world.

Technology and the things that result from it are not the problems, greed is the problem.

[edit remove SUV owner=narcissist rant]

Paul.

Supporting definition from Mr. Webster.

Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technE art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy
Date: 1859
1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>
3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>
- tech·nol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

nihili · Apr 2, 2003

krag said:
Is it an application of science? Yes, I believe it is.

This of course brings up the problem "what is science"? Certainly the chimps aren't using anything like the scientific method or bayseian confirmation within a hypothetico deductive system. The question of the nature of science deserves its own thread. But we might consider the relationship between science and technology here a bit further.

Consider where science would be wthout technology. Science as we know it today couldn't exist. Instead we would still be doing "Natural Philosophy". We might theorize about the basic structure of the Universe and how everything began, but without the technology necessary to test those theories, science couldn't exist.

Depending on how you define science, you may end up with a chicken and egg problem here. In part our choice of answers must be based on what we think the most fruitful way of proceeding is.

Role of technology?

Inactive Doc Logic Philosophical Mod

Disabled

Member

Member

Member

Member

Inactive Doc Logic Philosophical Mod

Member

Member

Inactive Super Quad Mod

Classifieds Moderator

Inactive Doc Logic Philosophical Mod

Member

Inactive Super Quad Mod

Classifieds Moderator

Classifieds Moderator

Member

Classifieds Moderator

Member

Inactive Doc Logic Philosophical Mod

Similar threads