This week’s readings focused on the idea that the advancement of technology may not be the bright shining future that we think it will be. Lewis, Lawler, Kass, and the “twelve southerners” [note: I will devote an additional blog post later this week to Wendell Berry’s longer piece] all address different elements of one of our main course themes: should there be limitations to technology “making our life better”? Does technology really “make us better”, or are we losing a key part of who we are in our increased reliance on it?
Lewis’ piece addresses the idea that man’s “conquest of nature” via technology, and argues that this is the incorrect way to look at it. “What we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument” (p. 55). Lewis argues that power to control technology is really “the power of earlier generations over later ones” (p. 56). Lawler, referencing Wendell Berry and Heidegger, discusses America as a “technological tyranny” (p. 130). “Technology, though all-pervasive, is not yet the whole of life,” writes Kass (p. 21). The Twelve Southerners criticize the fact that “the act of labor as one of the happy functions of human life has been in effect abandoned” (p. xli or 3 in the .pdf file).
In reading about the agrarian backlash against technological advance, I couldn’t help but think of an article I read recently about a Canadian family who has chosen to live only with technology invented before 1986 (this arbitrary number chosen for the parents’ birth years). This may seem a bit silly to us, but is this the kind of agrarian response to technology that our authors are talking about (in albeit a bit of a trivial way)? This family is able to get some kind of joy out of refusing to use smartphones, the internet (or even the humble internet blog). This also made me think about how quickly technology is advancing. Many of us would have a hard time going about our daily lives without relying on our smartphones or the internet, things that weren’t invented or were in their infancy when we were born. What would our authors say about this phenomenon, and do you agree?
A few other questions (answer as few or as many as you’d like):
1. What does Lawler mean when he writes “technological progress and technological thinking can provide no real remedy to our natural homelessness” (p. 134)?
2. Several of our authors reference Brave New World (Kass does so directly), and seem to suggest that technology at least could be heading in that direction. Based on what we’ve read so far this semester, do you agree? Why or why not?
3. The idea that humanity is more than “raw materials” is a theme of our readings this week. Is there more to humanity (like a soul, for example), and is technology slowly taking away from that? Does belief in an immortal soul require that we temper technological advance? Does lack of belief mean that we don’t have any limits to it? What else might we base limits or lack thereof on?
utopos et eutopos 
To answer your second question, I do believe that technology is headed in the direction that Kass talks about in Brave New World. If you think about everything we have read all the way back to the beginning with Kurzweil they all talk about it. The Singularity looks like it can be a real things and when you have reports made by the Bush administration confirming those beliefs it is hard to think technology would not get there. Even Turkle believed that technology would get there but she warned us about these advances she did not preach about them. Lawler also talked about reproduction without the female, a theme that screams Brave New World, but at the same time it is not just in the book where these ideas are being presented. Many of the authors we have read and the lecture we attended confirm my belief that yes we could potentially get technology like the ones we have read about in Brave New World.
As you point out, there’s definitely a theme throughout our readings of technology encroaching on our lives and possibly heading in the “Brave New World” direction. To play the Devil’s Advocate, though, would it necessarily look like Brave New World? Perhaps this is just my scientific illiteracy speaking here, but I have a hard time conceiving things like nanobots as real life, it just seems within the realm of science fiction. We have smartphones, but we still have wireless internet that randomly (or maybe not so randomly for people who are more computer literate than I) goes out. We have pacemakers and it may be within the realm of the near future that we can 3-D print organs, but that’s still nowhere close to making us immortal, or immune to aging (the latter a feature of Brave New World). Even if we do get to the point of having nanobots fix our bodies from the inside, and sex robots and all of that, do you think it necessarily has to look like Brave New World in terms of the totalitarian control of the people, lack of free will, etc.?
The real threat of totalitarian control through the technology described in “Brave New World” can emerge when governments are run by individuals whose human nature is pre-disposed to tyranny and a need for control. This is the fear that Lewis describes as human beings are able to develop and harness technology. Anything that the human mind can conceive has the potential to be developed as time progresses. We cannot determine when revolutions spark and tyrants are able fill power vacuums. With power comes access and technological breakthroughs can be used for destruction and control. It is not far-fetched to imagine a single figure who has the technological ability to control the masses. Control of the World State is enforced by seduction, not fear. If a populace can be fooled into happiness and true satisfaction, why would anyone rebel? We would have absolutely no reason to read between the lines of what is truly happening. Conspiracy theorists could be a dying breed under these conditions. Who would want to spark revolution if the basic human desire for happiness is already fulfilled?
I think it is absolutely possible for the future of technology to become totalitarian control of the masses. Look at the access the government has to our digital footprint at this stage, with public access to computer technology only a few decades old. Every keystroke can be monitored, every phone call stored. The recent NSA and IRS controversies shows that this kind of totalitarian access and manipulation of technology is already happening, even in the West. China’s government uses control of technology and even blocks access to certain webpages on the internet.
Brave New World has the government controlling the population through the use of test tube babies. The lower castes of society are controlled with manipulation of their development. Hypnopedia controls the masses in every caste and any variation of personality from the norm is met with social disdain and/or exile. All of this is done for the good of humanity and is possible through great leaps in technology. High amounts of monitoring personal activities is used and the access to information to citizens is limited in order to maintain control. Let us not forget that the World State is a benign totalitarian state.
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Banos that technology has the potential to develop a culture of perfecting human nature, much like Huxley’s “Brave New World”. The World State that Huxley describes is a society aimed at human perfection. Presently, we are able to produce embryos through in vitro fertilization. By having the ability to harness human reproduction outside of the womb, we essentially have the tools to play God. Kass’ “Beyond Therapy” report to President Bush lists possible developments of human perfection in the near-future with Designer Babies. The biotechnology that is being created through scientific breakthroughs like The Human Genome Project provide the blue print for our society to begin developing the perfect human. I believe this is a slippery slope that could ultimately end up in the hands of individuals would would use these technologies to meet their ends of controlling the masses.
The Singularity is definitely on the frontier. We are on the verge of Google glasses: the prospect of looking at another person while also looking at the internet. If this is to be a mainstream prospect of society, will we ever again experience the face-to-face interactions that make relationships possible? Just with the smartphone, and I am guilty of this from time to time, it is difficult to hold a conversation without wanting to google something. I can barely sit still for a few minutes without Pinterest calling my name. My point is, with this kind of deficit in attention plaguing our society, what is to keep us from gladly accepting this new technology without any qualms of the repercussions on relationships and plain serenity.
Pulling out a phone during a conversation is bad enough, but I dread the day I cannot tell if my husband is looking at me or sports scores with his google glasses while we are talking.
Although I believe technology will continue its advancement, I just do not believe that we are headed in that direction. Kurzweil talks about the singularity being something entirely possible in the future. A future with nano-bots in our bodies and machines processing information far quicker than any brain could manage. Even with that information, I still have a hard time believing we would ever end up in a Brave New World type system. Even if technology continues to advance, our entire governmental system is not just going to magically collapse and get rid of natural birth and individuals ability to choose what they want to do in life. Something like the idea that children could be “born” without a host still seems a bit far in the future but I think people are more afraid of the social and political implications of this rather than the science itself (“alternative” families having children they would not otherwise be capable of having).
The idea of an immortal soul allows human beings to deal with the fact of an inevitable death to the physical body. We also consider the soul as the divine spark separating humans from the rest of the animal world. The soul is the essence of our humanity. If we accept the premise of the soul then Lewis has a valid argument against treating humans as just another “raw material.” Humans are more than just another piece of nature.
However, should we be content to accept a death to our physical body and rely on the soul for a continued existence? God is silent with the proof of an eternal human soul and God is ineffectual against the diseases and deaths that plague human beings. Therefore, the evidence indicates we face a certain physical death without any guarantee of a spiritual continuance. Here is our motivation for biotechnology to save us from the pain of disease and perhaps one day provide an escape from death.
A lack of belief in the soul does not negate the value of limiting the application of biotechnology. Without limits, those in power become designers and manipulators of the human race. (Lewis’ “Conditioners”) Having the ability to produce every person with specific traits or skills does not make it morally right to do so.
The challenge is not harnessing the technology. The challenge is in the application. If we allow religious dogma to dominate the discussion we will never realize the benefits of biotechnology. If only those with power, (economic or otherwise) control the decisions then only a select few will benefit. We can have a balance if we look to the social scientists for the application. Technology moves forward, God adapts and everyone has a fair opportunity to participate in the benefits.
Steve
I think your point concerning the choice between the salvation of the religious vs the salvation of technology neglects some of the issues brought up by Lawler. The notion that we could ever escape from death through our own means seems just as if not more dubious than the prospect of eternal life through any particular deity. I also have a hard time accepting that immortality (in this life) is a goal that we truly seek out as a reward in-and-of-itself rather than just a subconscious diversion we’ve set up for ourselves in the face of cosmic existential insignificance. This is all not to even mention whether or not said goal is even desirable in the first place. Meaning is distinction; if we eliminate any sense of continuity of the human life through biotechnology, we rob our existence of any concrete identity. If our experiences and actions determine who we are as individuals, given an indefinite timeline, we eventually reach a point where all possible routes and tracks of life can be traversed, which effectively eliminates any notion of individuality. If there are no limits, no barriers to entry for who and what we can or cannot be, in what sense can we be considered human at all?
In reference to Mr. Goodwin’s response, it is human nature that determines our longing for life. The spiritual notion that there is this unknown to look forward to is simply in the eye of the beholder. Human nature is what pushes us to thrive and leaves us with the NEED to thrive. To say that the human need for immortality is a subconscious diversion defies basic human nature. We are animals with the very same instincts to survive. What makes us human allows us to create diversion in order to justify our actions and longings; whether they are based on spirituality or not. Lewis states that, “Human nature will be the last part of nature to surrender to man.” If this is indeed true, human immortality will continue to remain in the back of our minds as we begin to face our own individual mortality. Facing and examining our own mortality is an individual pursuit. Yes, we all do it… But, we also have the need to eat and the fact that the collective has to eat in order to survive does not take away from our individuality. Individuality makes us a person; It is who we are. We are all human, with or without said limits and barriers.
Concerning your 3rd question: I’m personally inclined to take the position of the vulgar materialist myself. It’s not exactly existentially re-affirming, or even a state of affairs I’m comfortable with, but there it is. Ultimately, I think questions concerning matters like the soul, the afterlife, or even vague conceptions of ‘humanity’ and what defines us as sentient beings are really just pursuing dead ends in language and human understanding. That being said, that doesn’t dispense of their importance relevant to our psychological/emotional/moral well being, and while I personally remain agnostic/skeptical, it is of the utmost importance to reinforce their validity as concepts. Cliched as it may be to say, mankind needs some sort of grounding and meaning that extends beyond the immediate and the material, whether it be of a religious nature or otherwise. Technology can detract from this in the sense that it insulates us from the material conditions of our existence that create struggle and strife, yet consequently grant meaning and contrast to and ideal state of affairs to strive for. By the same token, you could argue that technological advancement brings us closer and closer to the liberation of man from the constraints of his physical being, allowing for a greater amount of focus on the self and the inner life divorced from our carnal impulses and other vulgarities. I’m more inclined to side with the former than the latter.
I think you hit at exactly what I was asking when you said “mankind needs some sort of grounding and meaning that extends beyond the immediate and the material, whether it be of a religious nature or otherwise.” I’m not entirely convinced myself that technology and biotechnology inherently goes in the opposite direction, but I definitely see the potential there for that. If everything is about increasing the material life here, at the end of that is the recognition that even as we make ourselves older and older with technology, we’re still only here for a very short time. I think (to reference your other comment answering the Brave New World question) that there has to be some return to viewing man as *more* than the material life to avoid the “Brave New World” path of bioengineering. You stated you were agnostic and a skeptic, but I don’t think that necessarily precludes believing in something transcendent about mankind. How do you think a transcendent belief about mankind might look?
To answer your third question, I do not believe in the concept of the soul, but regardless of one’s religious views, I think that technology is bettering our world. There are downsides, of course, but the benefits (longer and better lives, for instance) are amazing.
I do not think that belief in an immortal soul requires the obstruction of technological advances. I think that people should try to better this world regardless of their religious views. The advancement of technology could, for example, help Christian charities aid more people in need.
Conversely, lack of belief does not mean complete amorality or a lack of limits. Nor does it not equal a lack of regard for human life. Our moral codes are typically based upon societal guidelines. One might base limits on technological advancement on a non-religious moral code, well-researched laws to prevent harm to humans and the environment, or even a non-religious fear of technology. After all, not all nonbelievers support the advancement of technology.
I think the last point that you make is important, but by the same virtue, there’s an extent to where our moral code has to be informed by some sort of transcendent, if not explicitly religious source that covers more ground than just your basic utilitarianism. Hume demolished the notion of deriving moral knowledge from descriptive statements about reality in the 18th century. If we’re going to engage in political or moral philosophy at all, we either have to boil everything down to a matter of preference or appeal to a standard that extends beyond human circumstances. I don’t mean to play devil’s advocate here, but if we’re approaching the issue of how technology impinges on matters of the soul, we can’t escape the religious. As far as the judeo-christian perspective is concerned, the pursuit of immortality could easily be construed as impious, in that it seeks to delay judgment/reunion with the creator, or even worse, acts as an effort to place man over god, or to defy His judgment in casting Adam and Eve from the Garden. I’m probably rambling here, the basic point I’m trying to make is that we can’t just cast aside religion under the premise of ‘neo-liberal transhumanism will solve all the world’s problems forever for everyone and anyone who says otherwise is Incorrect’. There are glaring conflicts with this promethean irreverence and a genuine religious perspective on life.
Concerning your first question: I believe Lawler is speaking figuratively in that he is using ‘homelessness’ to signify our existential despair and alienation in the struggle against death and the ills that befall mortality. We are constantly grasping at meaning, at some source of purpose to inform the harsh reality of our existence. Technology is one such outlet in which we channel our philosophical angst, though admittedly this is obviously only one aspect of said pursuit. For Lawler, Technology and the advancement of human knowledge is a diversion which distracts from the fundamental truth that to live is to die, and that our pursuit of liberation through technology only serves to either a) completely divorce us from our humanity, effectively negating the purpose of the exercise to begin with or b) provide us with some false sense of agency or control over ourselves and the facts of our mortality. In other words, we can either end the game by changing the nature of the very rules themselves (and what’s the point in ‘winning’ in such a fashion?), or condemn ourselves to forfeit in a gambit against the forces of time and death itself. Basically, it doesn’t to what extent we progress or even regress, the whole thing is just one insignificant act of cosmic masturbation.
Concerning your second question: I would say that to a certain extent, we are already there. The morality is certainly in place: vulgar consumerism, class stratification, aggressive secularism, the political and social breakdown of any notion of identity extending beyond brand loyalty or sexual appetite, etc. It isn’t even necessarily a matter of the technology catching up, more so whether or not and to what extent those in power are willing to lend credibility to the validity of eugenics. Orwell is a popular go-to amongst anti-establishment types when discussing the bankrupt and decaying nature of our current system, but I think that such an analysis largely over-exaggerates the level of blatant totalitarianism and ignores the fundamental trajectory of the culture towards, from what I can tell, what is effectively Huxley’s World State. Again, I think the main stumbling block would be the practicality of actually implementing such a large-scale eugenics program, or a eugenics program of any type given the demonization surrounding the science in a post-WWII moral climate. Even with all the talk of bone-marrow babies and cloning technology already in relatively advanced stages, I don’t think we’ll see any public (by which I mean state) movement towards a Brave New World. If that sort of shift comes from anywhere, it’ll originate and be pushed from the private sector.
To answer your second question, there is a definitely possibility that we are heading in that direction. I guess the bigger picture that we really need to look at is exactly how far will we let technology go? Even though there is a possibility that we could be headed in the direction of Brave New World, would we let it go as far as completely creating everything we know and governing our lives, or will it just be used as a tool to better ourselves? There could be an argument to suggest a technology take over. As you stated, most people cannot go a day without using their smart phone or the internet. I will fully attest to the fact that my smartphone and the internet make my day to day life significantly easier. Just how far we will let it go depends on how much we really want it to rule our lives. If we look back to the Kurzweil interview and the Singularity we see that scientists are already working to develop nanotechnology to enhance us and extend our lives. Kurzweil explains that by implementing this nanotechnology there will be “nanobots” or “blood-cell sized robots that can travel in the bloodstream destroying pathogens, removing debris, correcting DNA errors, and reversing aging processes” (Kurzweil, page 5). Maybe we will go further than just using the technology for health purposes and longer life expectancy. Kass even begs the question “might one not eventually secure human happiness by purely rational and technical means without the need for law or force or fear of God?” (page 11). Kass explains that we are becoming a society that relies on technology and the efficiency of it, and the advancement of technology is done under the idea that “since it was possible, it was necessary” (page 13). Will society deem technology so essential that it gets to the point of Brave New World? Hopefully not, but the likelihood exists. What would stop it from getting to the point of Brave New World? Only we can do that.
Your last point is a scary one. The slippery slope of “possible” and “necessary” becoming the same raises questions. Who is the arbiter of what is necessary?
I am not one to stifle the frontier of possibilities. There are so many luxuries and even life-saving treatments we as a society have thanks to technology. For example, the polio vaccine, radiation, even computers are due to visionaries seeing what is possible through technology. Visionaries like Jonas Salk and Madame Curie risked their lives to save others. These feats of possibility and technology have become necessary to eradicate and treat diseases.
On the other side, perfecting humanity through eugenics is also a byproduct of visionaries. Eugenics was a mainstream idea that wasn’t very threatening until used to destroy ethnic groups not in line with the visionary’s plan. Perfecting humanity (or at least someone’s idea of perfection) is possible with the right force, but is it necessary? The powers that be decide that.
I completely agree with you. It is a little unnerving to think that our society could eventually develop into a Brave New World society. I hope I am dead and gone if that does happen. When we look at Brave New World we see that technology developed more into governing their way of life. Take the principles of the World State, for example. The World State is founded based upon the idea of Henry Ford’s assembly line and focuses heavily on mass production and mass consumption. The mass production we see in Brave New World is the practice of Bokanovsky’s Process. Like we read, with Bokanovsky’s Process they could split the egg enough to create up to 96 embryos. Would our society go this far with mass production? One could argue that mass production of humans could create a more productive worse force, and maybe if you create enough Epsilon then you can have tons of workers for cheap. This is what we need to look at. We already practice in vitro fertilization. We have created many test tube babies. What will stop us from figuring out how to mass produce embryos? I read an article by Leon Kass entitled “Making Babies: Revisited” and in it he talks about the process of in vitro fertilization. He seems to take a logical stand point when looking at in vitro fertilization, but still finds that there is an issue with the “idea of the humanness of our human life” when it comes to this practice (page 35). My favorite take away from his article is this: “Parenthetically, we should note that the natural occurrence of embryo and fetal loss and wastage does not necessarily or automatically justify all deliberate, humanly destruction of fetal life. For example, the natural loss of embryos in early pregnancy cannot in itself be a warrant for deliberately aborting them or for invasively experimenting on them in vitro, any more than stillbirths could be a justification for newborn infanticide. There are many things that happen naturally that we ought not to do deliberately” (page 41). Even though the possibilities are there, does not deem them necessary.
Link to the Kass article – “Making Babies: Revisited” – for anyone interested: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080528_197905403makingbabiesrevisitedleonrkass.pdf
To answer number three, I do believe that humans are naturally instilled with instincts and reason. It’s the ability to reason that distinguishes us from all other animals. The human conscience, or soul, is what moves us to reason when faced with a problem or a decision. We “follow our hearts”, as they say. Our humanity allows us to make conscious decisions about whatever is before us. Having belief in an immortal soul will certainly guide a person’s reasoning, but I do not believe that this reasoning is fundamentally anti-technology. On the other hand, a lack of belief certainly does not mean that a person is progressive or in favor of a futuristic, technological society. Reason will determine what limits an individual has regarding every aspect of their lives and this includes the idea of technological development. Humans might base their opinions of technological limits on the possible future of their offspring. The family unit becomes a reason for making decisions about the future of society. This certainly does not account for everyone, but the argument that an individual’s family will, ultimately, determine their decision making is a valid one.
Although I am not an avid tech user (other than when necessary) I have a hard time getting on board with the ideas presented in the readings this week. I can see where Lewis talks about mans control of nature as just “a power over other men with an instrument of nature”. Higher forms of technology are going to be in the hands of the wealthy and more powerful. However, all the authors this week seem to have a rather fatalistic view of technology in the years to come. I imagine that if someone were to try to explain the internet to someone in the 1950’s it would sound like some absurd sci-fi concept, yet here we are using it right now. The issue that concerns me more than the technology itself is peoples ability to use it in moderation. Because whether we want it or not, technological advancements will continue. You mentioned the family that does not use technology invented before 1986 in an attempt to find a joy without technology, This seems overboard to me. It would seem an easier task to just explain and engrain in your children that even technology should be taken in moderation, rather than banning it completely. The problem of completely cutting out tech is that there are positives to it. To attempt an answer at question 3, technology does not in my mind diminish in any way the idea that humanity is more than just materials but it is possible that materials are part of it. Are our phones not a small extension of our personalities? If we were to look through someones photos and social media, would we not be able to tell something about their personality? I’m not sure whether or not belief in an immortal soul will necessarily set limits on tech advancement, but rather peoples apprehensions and general concerns regarding the increasing technology in our lives.
Your commentary on the pre-1986 technology family is spot on. Temperance is the key to any aspect of daily life, be it technology or even nutrition. Also, you are correct that there are many positives to recent technology. This family is obviously wary of the social media revolution and personal technological advances, rather than actual medical advances. I can see their point. I know families with no television for the same reasons. We all know it is possible to live that lifestyle. Most of us grew up that way. Being that their children are so small, it is, unfortunately, unlikely that it will have a lasting effect.
It is true that today’s society is very technologically dependent. Whether our dependence is to the point if detriment is a subjective idea. Some people see the addictions to smartphones and social media applications as a detriment to interpersonal relationships. Others see it as a means of building closer relationships to distant loved ones. When the technology disrupts face-to-face interaction, the extent of technological dependence is worthy of reflection.
I don’t feel that technology is heading in the direction of Brave New World. There are certainly some hints of it but nothing seems to suggest that we are heading into an era of technological totalitarianism, if anything the rise of the internet has led to the exact opposite. More people than ever have access to more information than ever, and, unlike television, they aren’t simply a passive observer – they can be an actor in the drama themselves. There are really more similarities to 1984 when you consider the recent NSA leaks, but I guess you can draw a parallel to Brave New World in the sense that we have willingly given up our privacy in favor of entertainment and frivolity, and haven’t been forced to give it up at the hands of the state.