Re:Technical Debt of the West
by nonrandomstring on Sunday February 20, 2022 @10:15AM
(#30406320)
@paul
> Because technology can take physical form like robots and cars?
Not so much that, no. Quite the opposite, because it's non-physical.
Physical technology has already taken on worrying forms, like atomic
weapons and gasoline automobiles. We've managed those admirably I
think [1] - even though it may seem otherwise at times. Physical has
inbuilt limitations. Consider Google Glass and the near unanimous
societal rejection of "glassholes".
I am just recycling Mumford, Ellul and Postman here, but digital
technology is different as it can produce near instantaneous change on
global culture.
> IMO religion has done so much damage in the form of wars, torture,
and (mass and individual) mental illness that I imagine modern
technology has a long way to go before it t can be considered as
worrisome as religion and its memes.
You're right, religion has and still does yield these consequences.
BTW I am not rejecting _all_ of religion, it has many good sides too.
But religion took thousands of years for its damaging effects to
happen. Much of what we blame 'religion' for is really a parochial
perspective on history (the view from now) and the playing out
of human evolutionary affairs through it. The same will be true
of technology .
What we must be mindful of is that they are (1) essentially the same
phenomenon, and (2) that digital technology will produce effects much,
much faster than religion. It;s really only been 50 years, which is
nothing in historical terms.
[1] That might seem like a disingenuous thing to say within a context
that feels so cynical, and we don't get to run control groups on
history, but I like to think that we're on course to correct for
climate change and that the game-theoretical MAD aspect to nukes has
proven somewhat correct so far and we will reach a future time of
disarmament. In that sense I have faith in science and people.
> Because technology can take physical form like robots and cars?
Not so much that, no. Quite the opposite, because it's non-physical. Physical technology has already taken on worrying forms, like atomic weapons and gasoline automobiles. We've managed those admirably I think [1] - even though it may seem otherwise at times. Physical has inbuilt limitations. Consider Google Glass and the near unanimous societal rejection of "glassholes".
I am just recycling Mumford, Ellul and Postman here, but digital technology is different as it can produce near instantaneous change on global culture.
> IMO religion has done so much damage in the form of wars, torture, and (mass and individual) mental illness that I imagine modern technology has a long way to go before it t can be considered as worrisome as religion and its memes.
You're right, religion has and still does yield these consequences. BTW I am not rejecting _all_ of religion, it has many good sides too. But religion took thousands of years for its damaging effects to happen. Much of what we blame 'religion' for is really a parochial perspective on history (the view from now) and the playing out of human evolutionary affairs through it. The same will be true of technology .
What we must be mindful of is that they are (1) essentially the same phenomenon, and (2) that digital technology will produce effects much, much faster than religion. It;s really only been 50 years, which is nothing in historical terms.
[1] That might seem like a disingenuous thing to say within a context that feels so cynical, and we don't get to run control groups on history, but I like to think that we're on course to correct for climate change and that the game-theoretical MAD aspect to nukes has proven somewhat correct so far and we will reach a future time of disarmament. In that sense I have faith in science and people.