Tech isn't inherently evil, neither is a hammer or a gun but both can be used for good or bad.
The author lost me when they said "Massive amounts of data is still hidden behind firewalls or not online at all."
Except: Sci-hub, pirate bay, project Gutenberg, wikipedia, IMDB and even here on hacker news (I could go on but these are big ones).
Technology (in all forms) doesn't change humanity, technology enables humanity to change. It is just a tool and we have to decide what to do with it.
If for every Peter Theil we get one Ellon Musk, one space x one step toward progress then by all means I consider it a victory. This is progress, and compared to previous generations the price has been fairly low.
Tech isn't inherently evil, neither is a hammer or a gun but both can be used for good or bad.
I see this meme everywhere, and I just can't fathom it. Not all tech is perfectly neutral, just because it's "technology". An iron maiden and a wheelchair sit on different places in the good - evil spectrum.
I think you are mistaking "technology" as a principle for "technology" as tools and objects. Technology, as referred to in this "meme" is merely "the science of craft" and has no moral component on its own. An iron maiden or a wheelchair may have been made possible by advances in technology as a whole, but came into being through the imagination of an individual, or individuals, who created a tool to fulfill a (moral or immoral / good or bad) purpose.
The underlying technology (metallurgy, ironworking) used in the iron maiden is the foundation for innumerable instruments of a constructive nature, as I'm sure the lightweight steel and rubberized wheels that made modern wheelchairs possible have found plenty of applications in military hardware or other "evil" devices.
Maybe using a gun as an example was a poor choice for this "meme", as it's hard to put a positive spin on a killing tool. But I believe the message is that inventions, with respect to humanity, can be wonderful or terrible, but "technology" is no more good or evil than the physical laws of the universe. Hope that's a little more fathomable.
Yours is a better argument, only because it claims less, and it is actually about science, not technology. Rather than proposing technology as a whole (including its artifacts) is morally neutral, you have limited the scope to the subset of technology which is knowledge (--ogy) i.e. science.
The difference between science and technology is the physical reification: i.e., metallurgy as a body of knowledge vs. a functioning smelter. The fact remains that whenever humans choose to bring artifacts of technology into existence, they imbue intent, which is varyingly good or evil. The less particular the intended purpose of the tool, the fuzzier the morality, until you get to very general technology such as "wheels" and "fulcrums", or retreat into science, as you have done with your examples of "metallurgy" or "ironworking".
I still think it's nonsense to call all technology perfectly neutral, while I agree that science can be.
"technology" is no more good or evil than the physical laws of the universe.
This is utter bullshit.
Technology differs from the laws of the universe precisely because it embodies the intentions of humans to harness said laws for their purposes, good or bad. That is what functionally distinguishes technology from random complexity.
An iron maiden and a wheelchair sit on different places in the good - evil spectrum.
No they don't. They are both just objects, people are the reason the iron maiden has the connotation it dose. The iron maiden could have been a single art piece in a modern art gallery somewhere meant to symbolize the pain of heartbreak. Wheelchairs could have been devices used to intentionally cripple children by preventing them from using their legs.
We need to stop living in this fantasy land where people aren't responsible for their actions. I'm comfortable making the assertion that it is an absolute fact that guns, the internet, and all technology are neutral until applied/activated by a thinking being (AI would count as a thinking being, IMHO). What if no human had ever died from a gunshot? What if we only used them to kill cows for consumption, would guns still be inherently evil (bare with me if your vegan)? Is it not humans who first choose to point guns at eachother?
We can't let personal responsibility die. We just can't... Otherwise all tech may as well be evil. You don't think there is an evil way to use a heart bypass machine? I bet I can find one. Give me any piece of tech and I can find a way to use it for evil, and a way to use it for good.
Even nuclear bombs could be used to save the planet from an out of control asteroid without doing anything evil. Or you could blow up a city of people. Where dose the difference lie? With the person whose fingers on the button.
I agree with your high sentiments regarding Elon Musk (however technology is in fact causing a huge toll, see climate change. In fact the very reason why we look at Elon the way we do is because technology's "price" as you put it is in fact not "fairly low".), but your central premise, essentially that human behavior is what's most responsible, not the tool (ie "guns dont kill people, people kill people") misses the the realization that if we can't critique the tool, we can't change it.
If we are tech enthusiasts, the discussion shouldn't be about what the causal effect is (because every problem can be reduced to human nature, and how useful is it to stop there?) but rather the discussion should be how we can improve the world wide web, and its empowerment of humanity and its amplification of our varied opinions, so as to better human interactions.
To give an analogy, to stop at human nature would be to, I admit, correctly blame humans for car accidents, but, and here's my point, it would fail to make any further vehicle improvements (ie self driving vehicles) to reduce the amount of people dying each year from car accidents. Yes, humanity is at fault, but are we going to change humanity to fit cars, or change cars to fit humanity?
Additionally, there are in fact massive amount of quality data, ie scientific journals, that are behind massive paywalls/"academia walls" and not in anyway freely available. This is the "data" that matters most, not IMDB or piratebay to rip movies and applications illegally.
Comments
Sigh,
Tech isn't inherently evil, neither is a hammer or a gun but both can be used for good or bad.
The author lost me when they said "Massive amounts of data is still hidden behind firewalls or not online at all."
Except: Sci-hub, pirate bay, project Gutenberg, wikipedia, IMDB and even here on hacker news (I could go on but these are big ones).
Technology (in all forms) doesn't change humanity, technology enables humanity to change. It is just a tool and we have to decide what to do with it.
If for every Peter Theil we get one Ellon Musk, one space x one step toward progress then by all means I consider it a victory. This is progress, and compared to previous generations the price has been fairly low.
I see this meme everywhere, and I just can't fathom it. Not all tech is perfectly neutral, just because it's "technology". An iron maiden and a wheelchair sit on different places in the good - evil spectrum.
I think you are mistaking "technology" as a principle for "technology" as tools and objects. Technology, as referred to in this "meme" is merely "the science of craft" and has no moral component on its own. An iron maiden or a wheelchair may have been made possible by advances in technology as a whole, but came into being through the imagination of an individual, or individuals, who created a tool to fulfill a (moral or immoral / good or bad) purpose.
The underlying technology (metallurgy, ironworking) used in the iron maiden is the foundation for innumerable instruments of a constructive nature, as I'm sure the lightweight steel and rubberized wheels that made modern wheelchairs possible have found plenty of applications in military hardware or other "evil" devices.
Maybe using a gun as an example was a poor choice for this "meme", as it's hard to put a positive spin on a killing tool. But I believe the message is that inventions, with respect to humanity, can be wonderful or terrible, but "technology" is no more good or evil than the physical laws of the universe. Hope that's a little more fathomable.
Yours is a better argument, only because it claims less, and it is actually about science, not technology. Rather than proposing technology as a whole (including its artifacts) is morally neutral, you have limited the scope to the subset of technology which is knowledge (--ogy) i.e. science.
The difference between science and technology is the physical reification: i.e., metallurgy as a body of knowledge vs. a functioning smelter. The fact remains that whenever humans choose to bring artifacts of technology into existence, they imbue intent, which is varyingly good or evil. The less particular the intended purpose of the tool, the fuzzier the morality, until you get to very general technology such as "wheels" and "fulcrums", or retreat into science, as you have done with your examples of "metallurgy" or "ironworking".
I still think it's nonsense to call all technology perfectly neutral, while I agree that science can be.
This is utter bullshit.
Technology differs from the laws of the universe precisely because it embodies the intentions of humans to harness said laws for their purposes, good or bad. That is what functionally distinguishes technology from random complexity.
No they don't. They are both just objects, people are the reason the iron maiden has the connotation it dose. The iron maiden could have been a single art piece in a modern art gallery somewhere meant to symbolize the pain of heartbreak. Wheelchairs could have been devices used to intentionally cripple children by preventing them from using their legs.
We need to stop living in this fantasy land where people aren't responsible for their actions. I'm comfortable making the assertion that it is an absolute fact that guns, the internet, and all technology are neutral until applied/activated by a thinking being (AI would count as a thinking being, IMHO). What if no human had ever died from a gunshot? What if we only used them to kill cows for consumption, would guns still be inherently evil (bare with me if your vegan)? Is it not humans who first choose to point guns at eachother?
We can't let personal responsibility die. We just can't... Otherwise all tech may as well be evil. You don't think there is an evil way to use a heart bypass machine? I bet I can find one. Give me any piece of tech and I can find a way to use it for evil, and a way to use it for good.
Even nuclear bombs could be used to save the planet from an out of control asteroid without doing anything evil. Or you could blow up a city of people. Where dose the difference lie? With the person whose fingers on the button.
I agree with your high sentiments regarding Elon Musk (however technology is in fact causing a huge toll, see climate change. In fact the very reason why we look at Elon the way we do is because technology's "price" as you put it is in fact not "fairly low".), but your central premise, essentially that human behavior is what's most responsible, not the tool (ie "guns dont kill people, people kill people") misses the the realization that if we can't critique the tool, we can't change it.
If we are tech enthusiasts, the discussion shouldn't be about what the causal effect is (because every problem can be reduced to human nature, and how useful is it to stop there?) but rather the discussion should be how we can improve the world wide web, and its empowerment of humanity and its amplification of our varied opinions, so as to better human interactions.
To give an analogy, to stop at human nature would be to, I admit, correctly blame humans for car accidents, but, and here's my point, it would fail to make any further vehicle improvements (ie self driving vehicles) to reduce the amount of people dying each year from car accidents. Yes, humanity is at fault, but are we going to change humanity to fit cars, or change cars to fit humanity?
Additionally, there are in fact massive amount of quality data, ie scientific journals, that are behind massive paywalls/"academia walls" and not in anyway freely available. This is the "data" that matters most, not IMDB or piratebay to rip movies and applications illegally.