There is another platitude people spout on the matter. "Technology is not neutral." Usually without elaborating. Any correct statement can become a thought eliminating cliche over time.
What discipline, outside academia, could position "nothing is neutral" as insightful and helpful commentary?
So is doing nothing, consuming resources and goods created by others, and living in the default state of humanity: brutality, poverty, and early death.
If it sounds if I'm being glib in this statement, I am. This article is an unreasonable amount of words which eventually boil down to "we have choices in what we do": an exactly equivalent statement to "X is just a tool, it depends on how we use it." Which, of course, is the thesis he intended to rail against.
Comments
There is another platitude people spout on the matter. "Technology is not neutral." Usually without elaborating. Any correct statement can become a thought eliminating cliche over time.
Postmodernism is a hell of a drug.
What discipline, outside academia, could position "nothing is neutral" as insightful and helpful commentary?
So is doing nothing, consuming resources and goods created by others, and living in the default state of humanity: brutality, poverty, and early death.
If it sounds if I'm being glib in this statement, I am. This article is an unreasonable amount of words which eventually boil down to "we have choices in what we do": an exactly equivalent statement to "X is just a tool, it depends on how we use it." Which, of course, is the thesis he intended to rail against.
And some people post the "usually without elaborating" platitude even in response to elaborations.
If you're referring to the article, there's no coherent argument to respond to. Sorry