Technology: boo!
February 8, 2006
David Portela
Jeremy Hutcheson’s essay on “Bioethics and the new creation” (Issue 5) commendably directs our attention to several pertinent issues regarding man’s use of technology. It is important to act against the abuse of technology, and to counterbalance cultural mindsets when and where they need to be counterbalanced. By speaking of technology in this manner, Hutcheson creates a recurring theme in his article, joining many other twentieth and twentyfirst century authors in treating technology as an entity in itself, that is, as something that exists apart from humanity and that works against it in many instances. What this treatment seems to forget is that technology is really nothing more than tekhn-logi, that is, knowledge or science about an art, skill, craft, method, or system, applied to some purpose. That’s all
technology is: concepts which people choose to apply to a certain end. Obviously, this knowledge affects the limits of what a person can or cannot do. And, of course, if someone falls into patterns or attitudes towards exploring (or exploiting) any or all of those powers that fall within their reach, this can be very detrimental to others. But it’s the person who is responsible for these patterns and attitudes, not the knowledge. This intellectual stance shifts the focus away from the real problem, which lies in human choices, rather than in humanity’s knowledge about the world. This shift has two readily apparent effects, both of which I believe to be detrimental to actually solving the problems pointed out not only by Hutcheson but by the authors he quotes. The first effect of this intellectual stance is the
creation of the specter of technology. This specter allows us to express our ill feelings about the misuses of technology without actually engaging those who are misusing it. We can cite examples of how technology allows sweat shops to operate, how it allows the creation of the atomic bomb, how it makes genetic selection possible, and use these to decry technology, as if it were an entity with moral responsibilities. It makes a nice target that we can hurl accusations at, something that needs to be limited, stopped, turned around, reformed, fixed, rebelled against, and so on. I fear, however, that while all of these may express very significant sentiments that should be hurled at someone, we take the easy road by hurling them at the specter of technology because it can’t fight back. The second effect of this stance
is to take the focus away from where it should be, namely, human responsibility. From our earliest recorded history, humans have used their tools for evil as well as good. The fundamental problem is not the tools; it is our human propensity to use those tools in our ingenious perpetration of evil. Thus, arguments that technology must be limited are meaningless if they are not directed at those who can limit it (and have not done so). Yes, humans are affected and carried away by their ideas. Yes, these ideas and attitudes can be talked about and discussed. But in the end, it is humans who will limit their use of technology (or not, and then there will be no one left to talk about it). It is humans who are autonomous and, to an extent, sovereign, and who need to use this autonomy and sovereignty responsibly to control
their attitudes and actions. It is humans who tend to systematize nature and humanity, and who need to be engaged directly and confronted when they do so. Our task is not to target technology, but rather to engage the human soul. We must direct our efforts towards drawing humanity into an appropriate relationship with God, nature and fellow man, and encourage humanity to set its own limits. In the end, it will be far more effective to engage and work towards that target than to hurl bitter words at shadows in the void.
Now you go...
Got something to say?