• hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    6 days ago

    I don’t agree. Technology in itself is not helpful nor harmful. It’s a tool like a hammer or a knife or a pen and a block of paper.

    I agree if one says that technology makes it easier to do harm.:) People and their motives and actions are the same as always, since the stone age and ago.

    • CameronDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      ·
      6 days ago

      Tech speeds things up. If you want to do good, it’ll help you do it faster. If you want to do evil, it’ll help you do it faster.

      • Dimmer@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        5 days ago

        in my opinion, at this point of history, FAST is inherently detrimental. Only those with privilege and resources are able to adapt to rapid changes and reap their benefits, while the rest are left behind.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila.

        —Mitch Ratcliffe

    • ghostrider2112@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I think the real problem is the drive to monetize so much of the technology. For instance, product owners continually try to increase engagement in their stupid apps and continually move things around and add new widgets that people don’t want, or use, all while continuing to degrade the experience of the features that they do use.

      • Flagstaff@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        It goes both ways: look at how much Lemmy usage has grown, and Lemmy’s existence is due to technology. We can protest with our dollars and time by leaving such products behind. Greed is independent of tech itself.

    • JollyG@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I think when most people say something like “technology is making the world worse” they mean the technology as it actually exists and as it is actually developing, not the abstract sense of possible futures that technology could feasibly deliver.

      That is clearly what the author of the piece meant.

      If the main focus of people who develop most technology is getting people more addicted to their devices so they are easier to exploit then technology sucks. If the main focus is to generate immoral levels of waste to scam venture capitalists and idiots on the internet then technology sucks. If the main focus is to use technology to monetize every aspect of someone’s existence, then I think it is fair to say that technology, at this point in history, sucks.

      Saying “technology is neutral” is not super insightful if, in the present moment, the trend in technological development and its central applications are mostly evil.

      Saying “technology is neutral” is worse than unhelpful if, in the present moment, the people who want to use technology to harm others are also using that cliche to justify their antisocial behavior.

      • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        When the discussion is about whether technology + an unregulated human society is likely to end badly, then there is not much to discuss.

        There are real life test series. In the 80s many countries put rules into place which forced the industry to filter/ treat their emissions. Technology gooood.

        Some countries restrict their people’s access to personal fire arms more than others. Statistics show that shootings are more likely, when everybody has a gun. Technology baaad.

        In my opinion it is mostly about the common rules a society agrees on. Technology amplifies both ways and needs to be moderated when it is misused.

    • metaldream@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Good God you people are deep in the sauce. Just straight up ignoring the fact that tech enabled propaganda to be spammed in people’s faces 24/7. It’s so obviously a net drag on society at this point. But don’t dare take away my dopamine rush.

    • NewAccountEachYear@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Technology is not neutral, and philosophers have known this since the middle of the 20th century. See for example Heidegger, Ellul, Arendt.

      Technology makes us relate to the world and others in a distorted way. Instead of speaking to you directly, and see your face and features, I relate to you through pure text… A whole lot of important factors disappear as I do. Compare this then to politics, earth, society, where technology have the same effect

      • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Instead of speaking to you directly, and see your face and features, I relate to you through pure text… A whole lot of important factors disappear as I do.

        Yes. That’s an aspect to keep in mind.

        I think distorted is a bit negative. Communication with filters, yes. I see advantages and disadvantages. It really depends on the case. It’s technology-bound but not exclusive to the digital age - Letters existed before.

        Advantages: asynchronity, time to think and reply. Use of different media. Less stressful because less information to process - there is a reason why video telephony isn’t mainstream. Less bias, for all you know I could be Gregor Samsa - you don’t see my gender, age, skin, clothing style. just my text. Disadvantages: misunderstandings can become more likely, since you dont know me. It’s more time consuming to talk through an issue… and so on.

        See for example Heidegger, Ellul, Arendt.

        Would you recommend one specific article or book?

        • NewAccountEachYear@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          For recommendations you can’t go wrong with Martin Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology. It’s a difficult read without previous knowledge of Heidegger’s philosophy (or phenomenology), but the essay is so influential that there is plenty of secondary literature on it, from videos to podcasts to texts.

          His argument, in essence, is that technology is a way of being that makes everything appear as resources for technology to use. As we become a technological society we see people as “human resources”, nature as a depot to be emptied: wind as power, rivers as kinetic energy, the ground as a chest of minerals.

          The same phenomenon can also be seen in everything that digital technology does to the persons and society. For example Cambridge Analytica, they are an expression of technology as a way of being, and what they see is untapped resources to be harvested for political gain.

          The argument is so influential that Arendt appropriated it to argue that technological/scientific politics will always become self-deluding without actual human intervention. Ellul argued that the technological society becomes self-referential, so that technology creates new issues that we can only solve with technology, which creates new issues (and so on). In the end we become able to do anything… but unable to either stop the cycle or understand what is going on.

          • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Thanks. From your answer I get that there is some philosophical basic knowledge which I’m missing.

            If nothing else, now I have heard the name Heidegger in this context.:)

    • nfh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      I think I basically agree with you and the author here. People applying technology have a responsibility to apply it in ways that are constructive, not harmful. Technology is a force multiplier, in that it makes it easy to achieve goals, in a value neutral sense.

      But way too many people are applying technology in evil ways, extracting value instead of creating it, making things worse rather than better. It’s an epidemic. Tech can make things better, and theoretically it should, but lately, it’s hard to say it has, on the net.

    • meyotch@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think a clear distinction to make might be:

      “Tech” as used in this sense is the industrial complex around mobile and web technologies dominated by a few players who might just be evil.

      “Technology” is, of course, everything you mentioned and more. A rock that fits nicely in your hand becomes technology when used to crack a coconut.

      It’s a weird linguistic murkiness, isn’t it?

      • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        The field of language, the meaning of words in different contexts… Communication in general, they wrote books over books about it…

        Yes. Murky. :)

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      The original use of what we now think of as a “spoon” originally had nothing to do with food.

      1000 years ago they would chain slaves neck to neck. They’d use the spoon to carve out everybodies eyes except the first guy in the line. Slaves don’t need to see. They just need to carry heavy shit. The first slave can see. The rest just need to go where their neck drags them.

      I say all this to agree with you. Technology isn’t the source of corruption and evil. It is just a tool. Just like a spoon. I use my spoon to eat cereal. Others use the spoon to carve out peoples eyes. The spoon is not evil. The spoon is a tool.