The Thing About Technology

Posted on June 4, 2007 by Dave Pollard

(This article is a heresy, especially coming from a self-proclaimed champion of innovation. It’s not quite polished enough to be a Dangerous Little Meme yet. But there’s definitely something here. I’m expecting a rough ride for it, but I’m ready.)

The thing about technology is that, since the dawn of the human species, every technology we have introduced has ultimately, and inadvertently, made things worse. That statement sounds categorical, so let me explain.

The human species is not very well endowed with natural gifts for survival. Compared to most other creatures, we are slow, clumsy, earthbound, and lacking in both fur and claws. Prior to the ice ages, we managed to do quite well regardless, largely by sticking to our natural habitat (the tropics, mostly tropical rainforest), eating mostly vegetarian, and using our unusually large brains and unusual ferocity to compensate for our lack of physical gifts.

With the onset of the ice ages, however, life for us (and most other life) became quite quickly more difficult. Our solution was to invent (usually copying models from nature) technologies that extended our speed, agility, ability to fly, ability to stay warm, and ability to find and hunt prey. Each of these technologies improved our short-run ability to survive, but each unintentionally created huge, intractable long-term problems:

The invention of the arrowhead and knife allowed us to kill and tear the flesh of, large mammals. This provided an abundant source of food. It also ultimately led to the extinction of these large mammals, and produced as a consequence the first true famines.
The invention of agriculture allowed more people to live per square mile, but, as Jared Diamond has explained, it produced as a consequence the first instances of human slavery, massive malnutrition, desertification, soil exhaustion, factory farms, the End of Water, malnutrition (and a much shortened life expectancy), a huge number of new and debilitating human diseases (like previously-unknown tooth decay), and the need for political hierarchy and military force.
The invention of transportation technologies allowed us to move ourselves and our food and other needs to places we would not naturally be able to live in. This produced as a consequence the ability to move slaves around the world, and to send prisoners of war to death camps. It has also produced the death of the oceans, thanks to transportation inventions like factory super-trawlers and the Exxon Valdez.
The invention of human-controlled fire allowed us to keep warm in places we would naturally freeze. But as a consequence it has brought about massive and global deforestation (as much a contributor to global warming as manufacturing and transportation) and habitat destruction.
The invention of the steam (and later electric) engine allowed great increases in production and productivity. It has also led to the commoditization and devaluation of human labour, a quantum increase in pollution (which in turn, along with mining processes, produced new, deadly chronic diseases), a fragile and severe dependence on oil (and because of that dependence, many of the major wars of the last century), and infrastructure and energy grids that are hugely vulnerable to attack, natural disasters and supply-outs.
The invention of medicines and other health technologies has eradicated some terrible diseases and reduced human suffering. It has also produced staggering human overpopulation, gender selection of babies (that has skewed population in many countries heavily in favour of males), novel and effective new forms of torture, vulnerability to old and new (overcrowding-related) pandemic diseases, hugely increased risks of bioterror attacks, and murders of the poor and homeless for organ harvesting.
The invention of communication technologies has enabled a breathtaking increase in our knowledge of the world. It has also enabled the rapid and effective spread of propaganda, which has sparked global wars, increased disinformation (“Saddam was behind 9/11”) more quickly than information, and enabled genocides to be more effectively provoked and carried out.
The invention of money has enabled effective trade in goods around the world that cannot be produced locally. It has also ushered in unprecedented disparity of wealth, currency and stock speculation and frauds that have ruined millions of lives and produced the Great Depression.
The invention of nuclear power…(well, you get the idea).

We’re in a constant race to keep up, and political, economic and media propagandists keep telling us we’re winning, that ‘good’ technology has outpaced and will outpace ‘bad’ technology. But we cannot win this race. All technologies have unnatural consequences that are unpredictable and readily exploitable. It is not in our nature to understand and preempt the dangers that any new technology can introduce (just look at the untested ingredients in our unprocessed foods, the recalls of improperly tested drugs and foods deliberately poisoned for profit, the tens of thousands of chemicals introduced into our air, water, food and homes with no knowledge of their long-term effects). The Precautionary Principle (which says ‘don’t do anything unless there is compelling evidence it will cause no harm’) is a brilliant idea, but one that is preposterously impossible to enforce — it is contrary to everything we do, everything we believe in, and everything our modern systems are built on.

And we’re just getting started with technology’s ‘promise’. In the next few years, new technologies like these will be introduced (because they can, and because there’s a human market for them):

Robots designed to wage war, with no moral scruples, and quite possibly with biological parts
Freak animals grotesquely bred to ‘grow’ replacement, harvestable human organs
Fully genetically selected (gender, hair colour, eye colour, other attributes) babies
Experiments among the obscenely rich to achieve immortality, and to escape the Earth for another planet
Security-compound communities for the affluent, completely closed off to non-members (“just leave it by the gate and go away”)
Mandatory sedative and other behaviour-modification drugs administered by the state, initially to unruly children and prisoners, and then to the ‘difficult’ aged and anyone deemed by the psychological orthodoxy of the day to be ‘mentally unfit’
Mini-nukes and bioweapons, developed by affluent states, with the same so-called ‘deterrent’ and ‘preemptive’ purpose that the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were developed for

We will initially express revulsion at these technologies, because they don’t seem to have any positive or popular function. But then we’ll shrug and realize that they are just extensions of technologies developed for ‘good’, and that if there’s a ‘market’ for them, or if the propagandists developing them can argue (as they will) that their end purpose (portrayed in glowing, or urgent, terms) justifies their unsavoury means, we will simply insist that, like factory farms and foreign torture prisons, they be kept out of our sight and mind, so we don’t get stressed about them.

A couple of years ago I gave up believing that top-down political or economic changes, or spontaneous social revolutions, will save us from ourselves. They never have. But I’ve always had a soft spot for innovative technology. In the short run, it can work wonders. It’s like the addictive painkillers taken by the terminally ill — for awhile, everything seems wonderful, but then the pain is back with a greater vengeance, and you need even more, of a different, stronger drug because you’ve built up a resistance to the old one. The one that worked for awhile is now worse than useless, because it longer has any effect, yet you’re still addicted to it. It’s no longer enough.

It’s never enough.

Photo: from Wikipedia, under Rust

Category: Technology & Society

This entry was posted in Using Weblogs and Technology. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The Thing About Technology

David G. Jones says:

June 4, 2007 at 15:58

See:Burke, James and Ornstein, Robert. The Axemaker
David Parkinson says:

June 4, 2007 at 16:37

Gosh, thanks. Or is that “thanks”. Another astringent read. So what’s the way out? There is none? I shudder to think of the scale of the catastrophe(s) needed before we’ll start learning the lesson here. Oh well, back to work. :-S
Kyle Schuant says:

June 4, 2007 at 18:41

So.. “every technology has made things worse”… posted on a computer on the internet. Hmmm.I can’t help thinking of all the rich people who say, “My life is harder than a poor person’s, I have more worries”, and yet somehow they never willingly give away this difficult lifestyle for the one they consider so much better. Technologies are a tool. All tools can be used for good or ill, and are used for good or ill simply on the basis of a human being’s decision. There’s a saying, “the common element in all your dyfunctional relationships is you.” We could extend that to, “the common element in all your examples of technology causing harm is humans.” Technology is not the problem; what we CHOOSE to do with it is the problem. Of course, if you think technology itself is the problem, and human choices have nothing to do with it, it’s just inevitable, I expect that this shall be your last blog post…?
Dave Pollard says:

June 4, 2007 at 19:33

David J: Yep, that was one of the inspirations for the post. David P: I’m not sure yet. My sense is that some of our technologies will soon render most of the rest of our technologies unaffordable. Kyle: Uh, huh, and guns don’t kill people, people kill people, right?
David G. Jones says:

June 4, 2007 at 19:41

Australia is the poster country for how not to work with the environment. Rabbits, frogs and gawd knows what else ravaging the country, all introduced to deal with a “lesser” problem. Sorta reminds me of the old camp song – I know an old lady who swallowed a fly.
Vish Goda says:

June 4, 2007 at 21:52

Dave,I agree with Kyle on this – its not the technology – its the people who abuse it. I believe its the same with Open Markets. The principle and the application of Laws of Supply and Demand is innocuous enough. The problem is in the abuse of those laws and principles of open markets.Same thing with Guns. Guns could be used for committing crimes as well as defending yourself. We have to remember that it was only the need to kill which led humans to invent guns – we were using swords, knives and arrows – but apparently that was not killing enough people.Its the same even with the internet. This could be the greatest opportunity for citizen participation in political process and information exchange – but instead the very first things we use it is for porn, entertainment and hacking. I believe there is always a small group that likes to disrupt and disrespect the normal workings of society – and the rest are so engrossed in their own lives that – it is always too late to prevent things from going out of hand.Otherwise, how would you explain the rise to power of such evil forces like Hitler, Saddam, Idi Amin and this north korean clown… how can a few evil people ( this includes the hackers) hold the entire community to ransom – time and again?Its the good people not caring enough that encourages the bad ones to keep trying.Technology is just an enabler – you could use it to do good as well as the evil – the outcome just depends on who remains more committed.Another great post.
Vish Goda says:

June 4, 2007 at 22:23

Dave,I can see an uncanny connection between this post and an earlier one titled “Dangerous memes”. I can easily counter every problem that you have listed here against technology by pointing out that the primary reason for the bad outcomes are human attributes of either greed, flagrant misuse or ignorance and not technology itself. Don’t you think that people were just not ready to wield the power from the use any of those technological breakthroughs, wisely?Technology gave us power – power over all things natural. Just as Knowledge is power – just imagine what kind of power, the knowledge of Eternal Truth would have given to the person who possessed it. Therefore, its not surprising that, the great ones thought it wise not to reveal it to everyone. Its not the knowledge that they were afraid to pass on – it was the power that they surely knew would be obtained from possessing that knowledge – and the inevitable destruction that would ensue – it was the power that they were afraid the people could not handle, that turned them towards silence.Sorry, but I have to say, you are wrong on this one.
Peter Gluck says:

June 4, 2007 at 22:38

You are right! We have to prepare to go back to the trees!peter
neo says:

June 5, 2007 at 00:54

Why can’t luddites, primitivists and all other sundry technology-haters ever see that everything in this universe is technology? From where do they get this ridiculous idea that perfection is found in nature? Yes, we have made pretty terrible use of technology, but atleast we can hope to understand and learn from our mistakes and reduce the abuses in future. Does nature afford you this choice?Gnostic literature believes that our reality is artificial, a dangerous illusion created not by a benovalent god, but by an evil craftsman/scientist whom they call demiurge. Hindus too descrive the physical universe as ‘maya’ (optic illusion) or ‘indrajaal’ (Web of Indra). And now we have the Matrix trilogy of movies that have popularised the idea of our physical reality being a matrix.Why have so many religious traditions around the world come to the conclusion that our universe is designed by some evil entity? Perhaps they have been unable to come to terms with the imperfections, arbitariness and all-pervading brutal violence that we see in nature. Certainly, some of the questions that theologists raise have some validity. If nature is so perfect, why do living organisms need to feed on each other for their survival? Can we humans comprehend the sheer horror of being eaten alive? Imagine watching every limb of your body being ripped apart even while you are still alive and breathing. This is the cruel reality that billions of living organisms have been suffering throughout earth’s history. Add to it earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, landslides, famines etc and compare the havoc these arbitary acts of violence of nature have wrought on all life forms through lacs of earth years and compare the statistics with the horrors of man-made technology. If a honest comparasion is made between violence originating from god/nature & man-made technology, we will lose by a big big margin.I look at earth as a space-ship provided with a very inferior and pervertedform of technology that forces almost all life forms to be cruel and violent towards other life-forms for their own survial and propagation. We, humans, despite all our abuses, have done far better with our technological resources than our creators.
locke says:

June 5, 2007 at 03:40

neo,There’s no such thing as perfection. The second law of thermodynamics assures that. I know of no one who claims that nature is “perfect.” Our technology can never reach perfection either. Because both we and our technology are a part of the universe, we will always be limited by its laws.”Gnostic literature believes that our reality is artificial, a dangerous illusion created not by a benovalent god, but by an evil craftsman/scientist whom they call demiurge. Hindus too descrive the physical universe as ‘maya’ (optic illusion) or ‘indrajaal’ (Web of Indra). And now we have the Matrix trilogy of movies that have popularised the idea of our physical reality being a matrix.””Why have so many religious traditions around the world come to the conclusion that our universe is designed by some evil entity? Perhaps they have been unable to come to terms with the imperfections, arbitariness and all-pervading brutal violence that we see in nature. Certainly, some of the questions that theologists raise have some validity. If nature is so perfect, why do living organisms need to feed on each other for their survival?”The dangerous illusion is not our reality, but in the idea of a dualistic reality itself. If this is an illusion, and not really reality what incentive do we have to care what impacts our actions here have? In fact, John Lamb Lash (http://www.metahistory.org) claims Gnosticism has been misinterpreted and actually originated as a pagan critique of Christianity for just this reason. The demiurge represents the Judeo-Christian god, falsely claiming to have created the Earth. The Earth is actually the embodiment of the aeon Sophia, who is who the Gnostics truly worshipped.Both Christianity and Hinduism arose from the hearts of civilizations, not from people who lived “close to nature.” In fact, most dualistic religions arose from civilization. The majority of tribal religions are holistic.Much of the technology you use comes at a great cost, whether it’s used for “good” or “evil” (honestly I don’t believe in either concept). These costs don’t effect you because they are generally externalized to the lower classes of our now global civilization or onto the natural world itself. (http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press708.htm, http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=5272, http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/publish/health-fitness/Our_oceans_are_turning_into_plastic_are_we_2.shtml, and tons more if you decide to look for it.) You’d probably think much differently about technology if you had to pay the full costs of it yourself.”Can we humans comprehend the sheer horror of being eaten alive? Imagine watching every limb of your body being ripped apart even while you are still alive and breathing. This is the cruel reality that billions of living organisms have been suffering throughout earth’s history.””Add to it earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, landslides, famines etc and compare the havoc these arbitary acts of violence of nature have wrought on all life forms through lacs of earth years and compare the statistics with the horrors of man-made technology. If a honest comparasion is made between violence originating from god/nature & man-made technology, we will lose by a big big margin.”This is just a fact of life and nothing we could ever really escape. We managed to avoid such fates for a short while now (although now just as many people are probably mangled in car accidents rather than eaten by mountain lions). Eventually we’ll have to return to a simpler lifestyle and we’ll have to contend not just with the predators, but withthe poisonous and marginal environments that our technologies have left us.Also, the way of life you’re defending is completely dependent on factory farming where animals live their entire miserable lives in torment, then are often slaughtered poorly and die much more slowly than if they had been killed by a predator. At least with the predator they have a chance to defend themselves.It seems to me awfully self-centered and arrogant to declare reality an illusion.
Martin-Eric says:

June 5, 2007 at 05:54

The crux of the issue is moderation, something that Humanity as a whole is seriously lacking. A tool is just that: a tool. Bioscience is a tool, robotic is a tool, telecommunication is a tool. What you’re describing is the result of what fear and/or greed creates by abusing tools, with often grim consequences. What’s missing from people drenched with fear or greed is a holistic perspective, the sort of humble point of view that someone who keeps in mind the old native “think about the consequences of that decision for the next 7 generations” would have. A few gifted self-disciplined individuals possess that sort of humble holistic vision but, evidently, “leaders”, being often driven by fear and greed, utterly lack it.
PeterC says:

June 5, 2007 at 06:33

Hmm, Dave, each of those “problems” you posted about technology comes back to population. We could kill for meat and we flourished until we grew too large a population and killed too much meat. We could farm and that ran out when local population became too large. We started bringing in food from other places and we grew, to the point where I question how much longer it can last. We used fire to keep us warm and we again flourished, cutting down ever more trees and so on.Honestly it is a simple problem of exponential growth that humans still have not come to grips with. Unfortunately, as you sometimes point out, simple problems are often complex rather than just difficult to solve. I truely see technology as an enabler, not a cause of the problems in the world. We are still programmed to breed like animals which should entail removal of a certain percentage of the population each generation. If that doesn’t happen, we need to learn to control ourselves.
Vish Goda says:

June 5, 2007 at 06:38

neo,”Why can’t luddites, primitivists and all other sundry technology-haters ever see that everything in this universe is technology?”Just exactly what do you mean by that?First, I don’t think anyone here is “technology-haters” – they just have a differing point of view. Second, what we call technology is a creation of man – applying the existing laws of nature – so everything in this universe cannot be technology – I would still call it Nature.
neo says:

June 5, 2007 at 08:08

locke,If there is no such thing as perfection, does that mean we should accept the imperfections of nature as our fate and limit ourselves to forever stay within the boundaries of what nature has decided for us?If primitivists don’t mind the imperfections and violence in nature and are content to seek the joys of life within the limited parameters of the natural world, why does abuse of technology bother them so much? I find it absurd that the luddites don’t find the violence inflicted by a tiger on a deer offensive, but are worried by the violence of guns and missiles. When I say that everything in universe is technology, I mean it that in the ultimate analysis, every miracle of nature is a technological wonder functioning in accordance with accepted laws of the universe. Every living organism functions according to its DNA code, which can be compared to software codes we humans create for our computers. Now if biological organism have DNA codes which are defective to the extent that they don’t allow the organisms to extract food energy directly from nature (the way plants get their energy directly from sun and soil), am I wrong in saying that nature uses defective and harmful technology?<>I don’t agree. Hinduism arose from the deep of forests and high mountains, not from cities. The Upanishads were written by sages who lived in perfect harmony with nature. While I too dislike modern civilization and at times feel enchanted by tribal life, primitivists tend to glorify tribal and their way of life completely overlooking the fact that most tribal civilizations never managed to evolve out of superstitious beliefs. If you research tribal groups, you will find that while there were some groups that were highly evolved in nature (probably guided by benovalent spirits), most of the rest were highly violent in nature, constantly in conflict with other tribes. Plus most of the tribal groups never managed to develop intellectually, content as they were to be guided in every matter of life by dead spirits of elders.<>Please..this is not a good argument. Why should humans accept ‘facts of life’ without making any attempts at improvization? I can even use your argument that technology as it exists is a fact of life and we should not try to escape from it. The powers that rule are responsible for all the bad technology that we have currently. Yes, millions die in car accidents, but if we design cars to mimic toy cars, there would be no more accidents. Even a bicycle is a result of technology, but does anyone die when two bicycles collide?…There is no way nature would have allowed me to communicate with you. God/Nature didnt provide us with telepathic powers to communicate with people across thousands of miles. But Internet allows us to do so. Now tell me how many people have died due to Internet?<>Now you are assuming things. I’m not defending factory farming or car accidents or nuclear accidents. Inventors all across the world are experimenting with different types of alternate technlogies. Even with present available technolgies, it is possible to create vehicles that run on water, magnet or solar energy. Please research on suppression of free energy to know more. Technology is not a problem, suppression of good, clean technologies is a problem. With proper clean technologies, it is possible for everyone to achieve self-sufficiency. When we learn to tap the immeasurable energy avaible in nature, we would be able to produce everything we want without any pollution. You guys want to throw the baby along with the bathwater.<>Illusion or not, the point is we don’t fully understand reality..we haven’t made the suns and the moons and we don’t control them too. If reality has a creator, it is safe to assume that those who created the suns and the moons are the ones who control it. Unless we discover the reality of the reality, it is awfully stupid for us to just sit back and say ‘reality’ as we see is a fact of life and we should live with it without trying to understand its purpose or the purpose of its creator. Its only when we keep investigating that we would be able to discover the truth about reality.
neo says:

June 5, 2007 at 08:12

-POSTED AGAIN DUE TO QUOTED CONTENT NOT BEING DISPLAYED-locke,If there is no such thing as perfection, does that mean we should accept the imperfections of nature as our fate and limit ourselves to forever stay within the boundaries of what nature has decided for us?If primitivists don’t mind the imperfections and violence in nature and are content to seek the joys of life within the limited parameters of the natural world, why does abuse of technology bother them so much? I find it absurd that the luddites don’t find the violence inflicted by a tiger on a deer offensive, but are worried by the violence of guns and missiles. When I say that everything in universe is technology, I mean it that in the ultimate analysis, every miracle of nature is a technological wonder functioning in accordance with accepted laws of the universe. Every living organism functions according to its DNA code, which can be compared to software codes we humans create for our computers. Now if biological organism have DNA codes which are defective to the extent that they don’t allow the organisms to extract food energy directly from nature (the way plants get their energy directly from sun and soil), am I wrong in saying that nature uses defective and harmful technology?”Both Christianity and Hinduism arose from the hearts of civilizations, not from people who lived “close to nature.” In fact, most dualistic religions arose from civilization. The majority of tribal religions are holistic.”I don’t agree. Hinduism arose from the deep of forests and high mountains, not from cities. The Upanishads were written by sages who lived in perfect harmony with nature. While I too dislike modern civilization and at times feel enchanted by tribal life, primitivists tend to glorify tribal and their way of life completely overlooking the fact that most tribal civilizations never managed to evolve out of superstitious beliefs. If you research tribal groups, you will find that while there were some groups that were highly evolved in nature (probably guided by benovalent spirits), most of the rest were highly violent in nature, constantly in conflict with other tribes. Plus most of the tribal groups never managed to develop intellectually, content as they were to be guided in every matter of life by dead spirits of elders.”This is just a fact of life and nothing we could ever really escape. We managed to avoid such fates for a short while now (although now just as many people are probably mangled in car accidents rather than eaten by mountain lions). Eventually we’ll have to return to a simpler lifestyle and we’ll have to contend not just with the predators, but with the poisonous and marginal environments that our technologies have left us.”Please..this is not a good argument. Why should humans accept ‘facts of life’ without making any attempts at improvization? I can even use your argument that technology as it exists is a fact of life and we should not try to escape from it. The powers that rule are responsible for all the bad technology that we have currently. Yes, millions die in car accidents, but if we design cars to mimic toy cars, there would be no more accidents. Even a bicycle is a result of technology, but does anyone die when two bicycles collide?…There is no way nature would have allowed me to communicate with you. God/Nature didnt provide us with telepathic powers to communicate with people across thousands of miles. But Internet allows us to do so. Now tell me how many people have died due to Internet?”Also, the way of life you’re defending is completely dependent on factory farming where animals live their entire miserable lives in torment, then are often slaughtered poorly and die much more slowly than if they had been killed by a predator. At least with the predator they have a chance to defend themselves.”Now you are assuming things. I’m not defending factory farming or car accidents or nuclear accidents. Inventors all across the world are experimenting withdifferent types of alternate technlogies. Even with present available technolgies, it is possible to create vehicles that run on water, magnet or solar energy. Please research on suppression of free energy to know more. Technology is not a problem, suppression of good, clean technologies is a problem. With proper clean technologies, it is possible for everyone to achieve self-sufficiency. When we learn to tap the immeasurable energy avaible in nature, we would be able to produce everything we want without any pollution. You guys want to throw the baby along with the bathwater.”It seems to me awfully self-centered and arrogant to declare reality an illusion.”Illusion or not, the point is we don’t fully understand reality..we haven’t made the suns and the moons and we don’t control them too. If reality has a creator, it is safe to assume that those who created the suns and the moons are the ones who control it. Unless we discover the reality of the reality, it is awfully stupid for us to just sit back and say ‘reality’ as we see is a fact of life and we should live with it without trying to understand its purpose or the purpose of its creator. Its only when we keep investigating that we would be able to discover the truth about reality.
Janene says:

June 5, 2007 at 09:36

Hey Dave –I gotta say, I disagree with you on this one, too. Homo sapiens is defined by tool use, and there is nothing wrong with that. Everything that you itemized, however, can be (eventually) drawn back to agriculture, population boom, hierarchy and, of course, how that relates to Dunbar’s Number. The ‘holy’ trinity of the NTR. Everything else is merely a symptom. (‘mostly vegetarian diet’? Not since homo habalis, dude!) Locke:Hey! How ya been? Can I play, too? :-)Neo:Perhaps, before invoking nature ‘red of tooth and claw’ you might like to look at how natural systems actually work. There is no ‘violence’ in nature of the sort that modern (or not so modern) civilization invokes. Birth and death are merely points in the cycle of life that keeps the whole shebang going. “am I wrong in saying that nature uses defective and harmful technology?”Absolutely. Natural systems are constantly being tested (by natural selection) for functionality, so what you have is true complex systems that are always the ‘best they can be’. And constantly subject to improvement. Human based systems, by contrast, are extremely simplistic and (relatively) static. The key to all this, however, is perspective. Just because natural systems don’t always work to human benefit does not make them ‘defective’ OR ‘harmful’ because, well, natural systems work for the best outcome to ALL life, not just our solitary species. And of course, human systems work for the short term benefit of humankind, with HUGE, long term consequences for the rest of the biosphere — and eventually, can’t get around this — this will also be to the serious detriment of man as well. We just don’t do big picture real well, and we get worse with every spike in human population…….On Hinduism: Hinduism is a civilized religion. Does not matter if it came from the boundaries, because it is still a reaction to the material realities of the civilized system. And I think that is what locke was trying to point out to you.By contrast ‘tribal religion’ (which, IMO, is not really religion, rather it is an integral part of the ‘primitive’ worldview) provides a functional understanding of living within the community of life (even the bits that seem ‘superstitious’ to us, still provide a functional interaction — ie it works). Animism, monism, holism…. whatever word you wish to use to describe this worldview, it is founded firmly in the world whereas dualistic theologies, bar none are designed to remove us from the world, as if that is even a choice…..“Its only when we keep investigating that we would be able to discover the truth about reality.”Agreed. But how do we effectively investigate? By making up creators and alternative realities (heaven, hell, alternate dimensions, whatever) or by exploring the world we actually live in? Animism is all about doing the later, ‘modern religions’ prefer the former.Janene
MLU says:

June 5, 2007 at 10:30

It’s true. “Life is trouble. Only death is not.” As said by Michael Cacoyannis. So what to make of it? I suppose we could kill ourselves. Though even then, global warming would continue unabated, on Earth as it does on Mars. How horrible a thing life seems to be!Humbug. Technology is neither good nor bad. It’s just power, and every increase in power unaccompanied by a like increase in ethical understanding and strength of character increases the chance that we will destroy what we ought to conserve. A nuclear explosion is exactly as natural as a wren’s nest.Some people have brought their character and skill to bear on trouble, using technology to perform miracles of goodness, as with the neurosurgeon who saved the life of my grandson a few years ago. Others fall into a solipsistic muddle of despair, dreaming of an apocalypse they dare not think they have the courage and wit to avert.Have faith. Step forward boldly. Learn by going where you have to go.Goodness and wisdom are possibilities.
Ed Diril says:

June 5, 2007 at 11:30

Technology is not inherently good or evil. It could be used for either purpose. It is simply a tool to amplify the contents of your mind. It allows you to express yourself more strongly and extensively. If we have problems, technology only amplifies it, but it doesn’t necessarily cause it. Until we change/fix our minds, I don’t think we’ll be able to change/fix the environment.
Vish Goda says:

June 5, 2007 at 12:17

Wow!! This discussion is going too deep for me to comprehend or contribute. There is really some neat points being made here. I am positive, my GK would have jumped up a couple of points here.Here is my take on all this:1. Technology is not natural – it is man made by applying the laws of nature, as we have understood them, so far. Nature might have many more hidden secrets that I am sure we have not figured out. We have yet to uncover the complete scope of the working of Human brain. No one can explain the telepathic nature of mother-child communications. Every time our scientists claim victory over DNA analysis – we dig up something new. Therefore, I believe that we still cannot explain in technological terms many of the ways that nature works. 2. We cannot ever equate violence in nature with violence instigated by humans. One is natural and mostly in response to some other natural triggers ( of course, we are adding a few ourselves) – but human violence is deliberate and targeted. If someone is determined to kill you – they will persevere and employ all kinds of natural and technological tools to achieve their goals. Violence in nature subsides as soon as the triggering mechanism is shut off. Triggering mechanism could be atmospheric imbalance, hunger, fear or movement in earth’s crust. Triggering mechanism in human violence is obviously humans – problem with that is – there are 6 billion of us and any or all of them could be a trigger on any given day.3. Finally, Technology is a deviation from nature. Therefore it cannot be said to have naturally evolved. In fact it is an aberration. Could it be possible that we got diverted into technology by a freak accident. Could it be possible that if we had continued to evolve naturally – without having to develop tools to protect, project or survive – could it be possible that our bodies would have found alternate ways to protect us from fires, diseases ( which is already there, but technology has only helped in curbingour immune systems) – to fly or to see from a distance?Consider this – no matter how far we progress in fuel burning technology and mechanical mobility by rockets – the interstellar distances are so huge that we cannot possibly device a mechanism that will transfer us from one galaxy to another in one lifetime. Einstein’s theory also dictates that we cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Could it be then remotely possible that, if left to itself, our brains or our bodies would have evolved to travel between places without physically moving? All this is speculation, or day dreaming – I know – but from the moment that humans opted to use technology over natural means – I think we may have seriously restricted the evolutionary process – in what way – I dont know – but by finding technology to help us overcome natural problems or issues or even man made issues – we have relegated evolution to the background – where it will stay.Maybe technology was our final destiny.3.
Ryan M. Davis says:

June 5, 2007 at 12:49

Wow…a “rough ride” indeed, Dave…Interesting to debate, but not particularly useful. Practically speaking, there’s nothing short of extinction that will put a stop to mankind’s affair with technology and invention at this point. The best we can hope for is that our species is capable of tempering it with a bit more wisdom and a lot less greed over the next several decades.
Dr Dubious says:

June 5, 2007 at 14:29

> “Life is trouble. Only death is not.” …. How >horrible a thing life seems to be.You guysshould study buddhism (small ‘b’ as a phopsphy not religion).The Budha gezzer had it all sorted 2500 years ago – life IS shit – and then you die -and then your constituent parts (physical/metnal/conscious) ge resditributedin the universe often ending up eventually being prt o some othr livng being which has enough setient consciousness to realsie what a big pile of poo it all is! However – there ae ways we can learnto understand how miniscule and insignificnt our personal pile of poo is compared to the great cosmic scale crappiness of consciousness -get things in perspective, stop being whinging moanrs andstart being nice to each other -cos when we are nice to each other sooner or later we will get some pay back.I probably have ovr simplifed it a bit but its certainly ot rocket science – I am sure other people have come to much the conclusion.For further (technology free reading I heartily recommend http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313
Barbara Rubin says:

June 5, 2007 at 15:11

Technology is not inherently evil or good. It is simply a tool. Tools have to be wielded with hands of wisdom, not just knowledge. The decision as to how technology ought to be used is called “Science”. We have a woeful lack of scientists in our society because no one will cut them a paycheck. Instead, industry hires techies to come up with profitable tools to be used in the absence of scientific judgment for optimal profit.Technology allows you, sir, to spend the time you need to read, think and write about these vital issues. It allows others to read and ponder your ideas, so eloquently phrased. Without technology, we would spend the bulk of our days in simply feeding ourselves for today and planning for the next winter season. Humanity can prosper via larger scale cooperation. The evil impulse is not just to obtain ‘more’; but to have it at the expense of others. “Mine” and ‘Not Yours” is the crux of the matter. “Mine” at your expense, instead of the wonderful concept of interdependence so rural dwellers provide food to stoke the urban populations who manufacture tractor parts etc.Don’t condemn the hammer because some evil intentioned moron is swinging it for the benefits it will bring him tomorrow. Monoculture is destroying agriculture and the environment. Farming is unsustainable because industry is determined to remove human effort from the growing process in favor of expensive poisons and genetic monstrosities, licensed for ownership rather than purchase/use. If tax subsidies didn’t go to growers, such farming methods would stop in a heartbeat since it is more expensive to grow GE crops than organics. And a greater proportion of crops would go to food instead of plastics and fuels. Science thinks about the day AFTER tomorrow. The products of imagination and ingenuity are not the enemy. Only the people who fund it for restricted use in the service of ‘mine’ versus ‘ours’. The people who offer a paycheck if you research a bit of this andsomeone else a bit of that – can’t let good minds ponder an entire problem or they may realize the answer is larger than the specific need of the sponsor.When minds are for sale, the products of those minds cannot be put to good use. Our think tanks are private corporations staffed by economists who tell people that DDT is good are not angered about the deaths of millions from malaria. They are enraged that industry was refused the right to make and distribute it – so they kept their better solutions in their pockets or claimed the known ones were just too costly – all to teach society to leave industry alone.If we had, DDT might cost as much as AZT and be dangled over the heads of malaria sufferers as AIDS drugs are today. I was poisoned by pesticides and won’t live to see my senior years. But it wasn’t the chemicals that poisoned me. It was the people who decided to apply them where people (adults and children, in a school) spend many hours per day. The sole motive was profit – a quick, cosmetically satisfying and profitable application of technology. The science dictates one doesn’t need it for such purposes and it won’t have any lasting effect except upon innocent human bystanders. But scientists don’t direct the use of these chemicals. A 40 hour class given to people without a clue as to the nature of these products (they are basically taught to read the label and are then free to ignore it) is the preparation for humans to handle highly hazardous materials. Technicians.The key components to the human conundrum are the human mind and the motives which drive how its products are put to use in society. The guidelines for that balance, in custom and in law, are what will determine our ability to survive. The guidelines have failed us because they are developed by those with ulterior motives and implemented by those appointed by the same individuals. So we blog in order to convince people to understand that custom will have to be developed in order to shape or override law.That is the ultimate battle, the coming Armageddon. Do we shape or override? Technology is currently implemented at the point of a gun – use it as we direct, ‘or else’ you will go without a paycheck, affordable food, a roof over your head, medicine (for what that is worth) etc. Science, the font of wisdom which directs the use of technology for mutual survival and prosperity, does not do well with guns. Minds don’t produce on demand and they can’t perform controlled tricks for their sponsors. Yes, nanotechnology will offer you a sock that won’t smell when you sweat after a 5 mile run. But what will those particles do to your body? Technicians follow it to the point of marketing the half truth about this product. Scientists follow the train of thought to the end of the road. Industry and their governmental guard dogs derail that train before it reaches its destination. Only the informed consumer can actually patrol the third rail.Barbara Rubin
Dave Pollard says:

June 5, 2007 at 17:15

Well, interesting discussion. I’ve already said my bit, so I’m not going to add much, except to say that those who suggest I’m calling technology ‘evil’ are missing the whole point. It’s not about good or evil (like locke, I don’t really think in those terms, and I usually put the terms in quotes to show I’m citing others’ use of the term). As I said, “All technologies have unnatural consequences that are unpredictable and readily exploitable. It is not in our nature to understand and preempt the dangers that any new technology can introduce.” Our track record shows that, because of that, every technology we have introduced has inadvertently created more, and graver, problems than it has solved. What’s my prescription? Certainly not going back (that’s impossible). I’ll write about it shortly, but I can tell you it is about finding a way to live simply with minimal reliance on technology; that’s not to say don’t use any technology (that would be just dumb), but rather only use what you must, in moderation, after considering the alternatives and consequences and applying, as much as possible, the Precautionary Principle. It’s about never taking any technology for granted, and never becoming dependent on it. And as some of the comments above demonstrate, boy are we dependent on it!
Bharat says:

June 6, 2007 at 02:49

Environmental problems — what is the root cause of it ? Humans not respecting the larger whole and acting in supreme self-interest. Humans seperating themselves from nature, as something “outside” of it. Social issues — what is the root cause of it ? Humans seperating frm one another, into individual selfish units and fighting with one another. To me, the root cause of all problems is , Humans seperating themselves from the whole and acting selfishly. It’s that simple. Technology has nothing to do with it. It just accentuates the problem. There’s an Indian saying “Don’t give coconut to a monkey”. The monkey itself is undesciplined, what’s it going to do with a coconut. It’s going to do more mischief with it. Similarly, technology in human hands. What’s the solution ? It seems to me, getting rid of technology is not the answer. The only solution is for humans to rethink our relationship with everything around, nature and other humans, and ACT with a sense of inter-connectedness. Whether we do it or not in next 100 years, it remains to be seen. It’s a choice mankind should make. The game of 7 billion independent selfish units fighting with each other for resources, cannot continue for too long, it seems to me.
Shane Elliott says:

June 6, 2007 at 20:42

The natural environment could be considered perfect because it is entirely self-sustaining. Particular things within the environment may live and die, but the whole entity functions on levels of complexity we have only now begun to understand. We are creatures within the environment, who live, breathe, and eat, but we also think. The conscious mind is what separates us from nature. It allows us to distort the natural processes of nature (not to say it can’t bring us closer to nature, with meditation and what not, but this takes years of training and focus to achieve…discipline is not natural.) Where does our conscious mind come from? Society. Our species’ ability to organize our thinking collectively and pass our knowledge through time allows us to manipulate the natural environment to our own end. Technology can be sometimes damaging to the environment, or ourselves, because we are clumsy. Our manipulation of matter and energy is violent. We have only begun to tap into the power of technology. In time, if we do not eradicate ourselves first, science/technology (or the advancement of human endeavor in controlling reality) should enable us to have greater precision in utilizing the bounty of our blessed planet in a more sustainable, natural way. In short, the evolution of our species is incomplete. If we are to last (until the universe tears apart) mastery of science/technology is the key.
Kyle Schuant says:

June 7, 2007 at 00:00

Dave, it is absoultely true that guns don’t kill people BY THEMSELVES, but people kill people using guns. That does not mean that guns ought not to be regulated. Things which are dangerous, we regulate, and use with prudence and caution. Likewise, we ought to regulate, and use with prudence and caution other technology. Again, I point out the logical conclusion of what you’ve posted: if all technology ultimately and inevitably leads to evil, then the only moral thing for you to do is switch off your computer right now, and never post again, since your contribution can only hasten an evil end. If you continue posting your blog using your computer, then we must assume that either you want to do evil, or else that you think your particular use of the technology is not evil, therefore you think that a person’s choice and intent are more important than the tool itself. Since I do not think you want to do evil, it logically follows that you are behaving as though, as I said, “Technology is not the problem; what we CHOOSE to do with it is the problem.” By “what we choose to do with it” I do not mean simply what you or I choose to do, but what we as a society choose to do, with our customs and laws. This applies to any technology, whether it be firearms, the internet, pharmaceuticals, oil, or whatever. Again, I think of the rich man telling the poor man that money is a terrible burden. I’m sure he could find many volunteers to assist him with that wearisome burden, if he wished to be rid of it. Likewise, with technology. As I implied above, I think we can judge a person’s true beliefs by their actions. Since you continue to post your blog online, we can only conclude that you don’t really believe technology is ultimately evil, but that what we choose to do with it actually matters.
George Seldes says:

June 9, 2007 at 00:37

Well, this is an argument without end, and as there is no beer on The Internets, I won’t be joining in.But I did want to beg you to reject the cliched and incorrect use of quantum, as in “a quantum increase in pollution.”You WISH pollution was quantized–that it could only exist in defined levels (energy states).Alas, pollution is most definitely not quantized, and people who refer to “quantum increases” when they mean “large” only hurt their writing.
neo says:

June 9, 2007 at 01:12

“But how do we effectively investigate? By making up creators and alternative realities (heaven, hell, alternate dimensions, whatever) or by exploring the world we actually live in? Animism is all about doing the later, ‘modern religions’ prefer the former”Have the animists actually explored the world we live in? Everything in our universe is manufactured; everything in our universe has been created using technology. Not all of the technology that we insist on calling ‘nature’ is good technology. Quite a lot of the technology of ‘nature’ is downright evil technology.http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/t/the_artificial_world_we_live_in.htmlThe Artificial World We Live InThe Universe is unreal. Life is unreal. Nature is not natural.”We ARE products of intelligent beings in the Universe. Another article that one might consider is called ‘The Purpose for the Human Race.’ We are strangers on Earth. Our ancestors landed here and made this planet their home. We are also not the creations of aliens. Aliens did not accelerate the development of natural, Earthly primates. We came from HUMANS. These prehistoric, human ancestors are not the ones you are familiar with. They (we) were once spiritual, super-tech GODS. But, we have fallen from greatness.The point here is to state that the Universe is not just gas and dust and debris. It is not outrageous to believe that the cosmos is filled with Life. What if the Universe itself is an artificial construct? Where scientists see only lifelessness; there could be life. What we believe is natural could be artificial. Out of ignorance, we may be viewing the Universe the wrong way. Maybe the truth is: The world is unnatural. It was all MADE or manufactured by intelligences far beyond our comprehension””When we see a piece of nature; a rock; an insect; a tree; a cat; a dolphin…don’t be so sure this creature or thing naturally formed over time. These bits of nature are magnificant works of art. The cosmic intelligences behind the purposeful designs of Life should not be forgotten or ignored. Super Scientists, beyond our wildest imagination, can achieve all that has been attributed to God. It was HUMAN progenitors that were the original artists on Earth. They are us. Everything was manufactured.”
Janene says:

June 9, 2007 at 10:28

Yes, neo… animiast actually explore the world we live in. And what we find (although I am loath to place myself on any level comparable to our primitive ancestors, as I have only just begun to understand what they comprehended from birth….) is a world that does not require expansive explanation and theory, because it all makes sense on its face.Before you go buying into all of these massive conspiracies, you might want to consider the simplier solution.Janene
Jay Conner says:

June 9, 2007 at 10:48

It has seemed obvious to me for some time that technology is universally fatal, and therefore self-correcting.This is why we have never contacted or been contacted by other civilizations in the universe, many of whom are millions of years older than we are. They, like we, developed technology, and it killed them. All of them. It always does.
David Emanuel says:

June 9, 2007 at 18:27

I think this passage from Ran Prieur’s, “Seven Lies About Civilization”, is perfect for this “debate”:—Technology is neutral. Of all the lies about civilization, this one is the most insidious, the most challenging to refute, the one that most cripples the understanding of people who should know better. It’s such a huge lie that it’s hard to get a grip on it, so self-referential that it’s hard to get outside it. Getting outside it is not a matter of learning a simple argument but learning a whole different and more complex way of thinking.The lie has two forms that are usually blurred together. One says that technology as a whole is neutral, where “technology” may be covertly defined as modern industrial technology. The other form says that every particular technology is neutral. My strategy is to attack the second and make the first look silly by declaring that no particular technology is neutral, that every technique, technology, and tool has its own set of motives and relationships.First, I want to expose the lie’s strange internal definition of “neutral,” which is that a thing is “neutral” if you can tell a story about how it can do good and another story about how it can do bad. When do we ever use this definition in real life? Do we say a serial killer is neutral because in addition to raping and killing women he pays taxes and is sometimes nice to people? If you work in a factory by day to learn how to sabotage it by night, are you neutral to that factory because you both help and hurt it? If my nation sells weapons to two other nations that are at war, so they will destroy each other and my nation will come out on top, does that count as neutral? Of course not! But these are the same kinds of ridiculous arguments people use to declare technologies neutral: Television is neutral because it not only makes us passive consumers of a uniform culture subject to central control, but it can transmit useful information. Dams areneutral because while they submerge ecosystems and block fish runs, they also make electricity. Even atomic bombs are neutral if we can think of some cockamamie story about doing good with them.The next level of deception is to say that it’s the “way we use” a technology that’s important. For example, cars are neutral because/therefore you can use one to go from place to place, or to intentionally run someone over. But as Jacques Ellul pointed out, the latter is not a use — it is a crime. Calling it a use tricks us into placing our evaluating perspective in an artificial space between the normal use of cars and a crime, instead of where it belongs — right in the middle of the extreme biases in the normal use of cars.Even if we ignore the exploitation of “resources,” the displacement or murder of indigenous people, and the release of toxins required to manufacture and fuel cars, even if we ignore the millions of collision deaths and the poison-leaking wrecks, and we just look at cars as consumer tools, we can still see troubling built-in effects:By moving us faster from place to place, cars insert distance into our physical environment, and the space in this distance will be largely filled with streets and parking lots to hold all the cars. Earth-killing pavement, urban sprawl, and strip malls are practically inherent in the technology of the automobile. Also, for complex reasons, speeds beyond a certain low threshold actually increase commuting time. Also, once this distance has been inserted, you need a car to do anything. To exaggerate a point made by Ivan Illich, if you live in Los Angeles you might as well have had your legs cut off.Take away the cars, and we don’t try to walk 40 miles a day on the freeways — we tear up the pavement and build our physical communities so that everything we need is in walking distance. We spend less time commuting, we free all the time and energy we were putting into cars, and we regain autonomy through being able to use our own legs.Also we have better relationships. Because cars move us past everything so fast, and because they enclose us, they insulate us from the reality around us, from other people and nature, and they enable us to replace thick close relationships with thin distant ones. Without them we relate directly and frequently to what’s right in front of us; we know our neighbors and we know the land.I could make similar arguments about computers, television, electricity, even written language. But the point is not to simply reject whole categories of technology, but to learn to see the alliances and motives that are built into technologies themselves regardless of “use,” and to practice including or rejecting them on the basis of this understanding.The customary definition of “use” is itself a trick of language that subtly limits what is negotiable. Notice that it includes only use by consumers and not use by engineers, who have covertly been given permission to use anything in any way. Is the automobile a technology, or a use of the internal combustion engine? Is internal combustion a technology or a use of fire? Some ancient societies used the technology of the wheel only in pottery-making. Let’s do that! “No, no, the car is a technology, and the use is where I drive it. That’s the only thing you’re permitted to question.”If you can keep the discussion going, sooner or later you will hear something like “Cars could be electric instead of gasoline-burning” or “We could use solar or wind power instead of nuclear.” Then you can point out that they’re choosing one technology over another for the same use, so they knew all along that technologies are not neutral.—http://ranprieur.com/essays/7lies.html
Vish Goda says:

June 10, 2007 at 18:50

Kevin Kelly describes Technology and its role best in this presentation for TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/19