PDA

View Full Version : Ten Recommended Attitudes About Technology


Mel Brennan
19 Aug 2004, 08:03 PM
Jerry Mander:

1) Since most of what we are told about new technology comes from its proponents, be deeply skeptical of all claims.

2) Assume all technology "guilty until proven innocent."

3) Eschew the idea that technology is neutral or "value free." Every technology has inherent and identifiable social, political, and environmental consequences.

4) The fact that technology has a natural flash and appeal is meaningless. Negative attributes are slow to emerge.

5) Never judge a technology by the way it benefits you personally. Seek a holistic view of its impacts. The operative question is not whether it benefits you, but who benefits most? And to what end?

6) Keep in mind that an individual technology is only one piece of a larger web of technologies, "megatechnology." The operative question here is how the individual technology fits the larger one.

7) Make distinctions between technologies that primarily serve in the individual or the small community (e.g., solar energy) and those that operate on a scale outside of community control (e.g., nuclear energy). The latter kind is the major problem of the day.

8) When it is argued that the benefits of the technological lifeway are worthwhile despite harmful outcomes, recall that Lewis Mumford referred to these alleged benefits as "bribery." Cite the figures about crime, suicide, alienation, drug abuse, as well as environmental and cultural degradation.

9) Do not accept the homily that "once the genie is out of the bottle you cannot put it back," or that rejecting a technology is impossible. Such attitudes induce passivity and confirm victimization.

10) In thinking about technology within the present climate of technological worship, emphasize the negative. This brings balance. Negativity is positive.

Discuss, please.

Foosinho
20 Aug 2004, 08:31 AM
I disagree strongly with a lot of the list.

1) I would suggest people be skeptical of all claims. Evangelicalism is a dangerous thing.

2) No way. I think I see where he's coming from, but this kind of attitude gives us agencies like the FDA - which is entirely too restrictive IMO.

3) Interesting, but I think I disagree. A gun is value-neutral: it can be used to provide food for your family/community, or it can be used to murder. Any technology can be applied in a harmful manner - but that doesn't mean the technology itself is inherently harmful.

4) Sure. Isn't this a bit like #1?

5) This isn't technology-specific. It's a good idea to assess everything this way.

6) Interesting. If entirely impractical to consider. People are innovative in ways others cannot forsee. All potential applications and effects of a new technology cannot be known in advance.

7) OK, a reasonable philosophy. But nuclear is useful and desirable in certain domains.

8) Are we talking about marginal benefits? Nothing is without a cost. The real question is not about the presence of cost, it's about the ratio of benefit to cost. SUV's provide a tiny marginal benefit over minivans. They aren't worth it. Automobiles provide a massive marginal benefit over bicycles. Can that margin improved? Yes. Should it? Most definitely.

9) I'll agree with this to a certain extent.

10) I'll disagree again. (Big suprise, eh?)

I don't think the "future" is quite as malleable as Mander thinks. If a particular technology has beneficial uses, it will get used there. If a particular technology (say, the SUV) is more harmful than beneficial, then yes - it should be eschewed.

While I don't agree with Postrel 100%, she makes some compelling arguments in The Future and it's Enemies (http://www.dynamist.com/tfaie/index.html) that technology is not something to be feared, and that we should vigorously encourage technological growth. Being free to innovate, people will come up with some remarkable technologies that will improve our lives in ways we cannot imagine.

Danks81
20 Aug 2004, 07:45 PM
Technology can be great, but it should be nothing more than a tool to help you life your life rather than rule it. If one cannot understand this than you go from using the tool to becoming one.

Foosinho
20 Aug 2004, 08:13 PM
Technology can be great, but it should be nothing more than a tool to help you life your life rather than rule it. If one cannot understand this than you go from using the tool to becoming one.
Punny!

Anyway, I pretty much agree with the sentiment. If it doesn't help me improve my life in some way, I'm not really all that interested. I like PDA's, but the old Palm III I had in college never really meshed seamlessly with my data, and the way I operated.

Frankly, that's one of the great things about TiVo - I watch better television, because I am no longer constrained by when I'm home, what the networks are showing at the times I want to watch TV, and what I'm aware is on. I regularly TiVo stuff that's on late at night, on obscure channels, and watch that stuff rather than Friends.

microbrew
21 Aug 2004, 01:32 AM
I'm reminded of the IEEE Code of Ethics (http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=about/whatis&file=code.xml&xsl=generic.xsl).

I'll get around to the specific points later.

Jerry Mander seems to be a fan of the Precautionary principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle).

What do we want out of a particular technology? To be proven safe? To be proven not safe? Is not using it an option (opportunity cost)? And does any of this matter if there's informed consent? And most importantly, who's paying for it?


And I find Ms. Postrel rather flaky.

Foosinho
21 Aug 2004, 08:50 AM
I'm reminded of the IEEE Code of Ethics (http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=about/whatis&file=code.xml&xsl=generic.xsl).

A favorite of mine. I actually really enjoyed my EE ethics class.

Jerry Mander seems to be a fan of the Precautionary principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle).

I have many of the same criticisms as are outlined on that page. Which is an especially complete Wikipedia page!

What do we want out of a particular technology? To be proved safe? To be proved not safe? Is not using it an option (opportunity cost)? And does any of this matter if there's informed consent? And most importantly, who's paying for it?

Important questions. Frankly, Mander's attitude is much like BushCo's "Data Quality Act", except taken to the other extreme. Frankly, if humans operated this way we'd still be eating our meat raw off of the bone. Both fire and knives have some horrifying negative consequences.

And I find Ms. Postrel rather flaky.

Perhaps. I don't agree with everything she says - some of it is quite a stretch - but I think she raises some good points in TFAIE. One of the most important ideas she mentions is that you can't be afraid to make mistakes going forward - and you can't be afraid to correct them as new data comes out. Practice due diligence before unleashing some new tech, but don't take it to some ridiculous extreme.