Interesting quote found on quitfacebook... "Our brains are no match for our technology". But our technology is a direct result of our brains. So, put it very simply, is it matching when we do good things with it and not matching when we do bad things? Any thoughts?
Technology is a form of art, formalized after N iterations. I doubt we can judge technology only in terms of STEM (utility). Morality is disconnected from technology per se as it's only a result of using it. Therefore, I would extend your argument into question whether human is inherently evil because he finds a way to misuse technology?
Login or register to reply
If we only found ways to misuse it I'd say we are evil. If misusing technology makes us inherently evil wouldn't good use of technology make us inherently good? Since we do both I'd say we can't be totally either.
Well, technology without use is inert, just a brick (stone being not thrown, electrical potential being not transformed etc.), devoted of any ethical considerations. Only after use it becomes deemed as 'good' or 'bad'. It's a human-object that fills it with this ethical consequence. It's actually process of transformation that lies at the hearth of the problem and this transformation is human induced. So if one would be inherently good, would he _ever_ misuse it?
I wouldn't say we are evil _because_ of that. There are probably (anthropological) predispositions for violence but I think it's overshadowed by environmental factors, same as for predispositions to diseases. Those factors include culture, education, etc. And the resulting state and sanity of a given human society. Can we organize ourselves to the point of not giving up in "primordial" behavior, leading us to misuse technology? Maybe that will require a new evolutionary step.
I was sharing a view that environmental factors are deciding, but after reading (and thinking about) on religion theory and psychoanalysis (with focus on trauma) I cannot shake off the feeling that violence is just inherit to human. Resulting culture, education and law are secondary mechanisms for human to advance his tribe, but those are utilitarian in nature, evolutionary one may say. I think that no, we cannot organize above some threshold. It's an original sin in a way.
Depends on your theory of art: what if it's just conspicuous consumption of productive capacity? What if, as Adam Savage recently said, there is no differentiation between making [ie, the use and creation of technology] and art?
Well, I thought more in terms of emergence of innovative technology. Ie. Medicine began as purely empirical art, the need to organize knowledge was secondary to exercising judgment based on experience.
Depends again on the "art". Creation of tech generally involves a congruence of talent, perseverance, purpose driven people. Being rockets, mechanical watches or even medicine. But that is hidden by the just conspicuous consumption part, unfortunately keeping technology from being appreciated when it does good things. But sometimes, there is making without art. Like... Modern art.