RE: Technology vs. Society (PART I)

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Technology vs. Society (PART I)

in philosophy •  8 years ago 

ok...I'll try.
(the subject is actually worth a book...maybe one day)
executive summary.
Learning that is taught could be said to be a form of technology. (most extremely primitive form possible)

Animals that do not have ANY technology are NOT taught taken care of by their parents. I'm thinking perhaps, turtles, snakes, cuttlefish, etc. Not to say that they are not intelligent, the cuttlefish certainly is....or that they don't learn..but nothing is passed on to the next generation. By my definition being able to pass on learning to the next generation is the minimium form of technology.

It doesn't even require language.

Lanquage is a BIG help though. Language is definitely technology. It's defnitely NOT instinct otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them.

And it progresses from there. Language, writing, matematics....mechanics, etc.

What I mean by "man is defined by his technology" is that man can NOT exist without it. We are entirely unsuitable to living without tools of any type. Unlike...say...a rattlesnake.

Soory...I didn't intent to disucuss politics.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Thank you for clarifying your point! I can definitely understand that we can't exist without technology, but what about technology that becomes so advanced that we can't use it properly? I guess maybe I should have centered my point not on technology vs society, but technology that can challenge society. Right? like it can't always be a good thing?

Free choice.
take the Amish for example. They have a certain level of technology that they are comfortable with and no more.
It's up to them.
Why not let people do as they please?

I think the Amish are a great example. That being said, I agree that the Amish have effectively made a decision as a community what technology they are comfortable with. But they as a people decided that and I'm sure they will be challenged with future technologies and will have to decide what to do as well. But the point is--and the point of what I wrote above--is that we as a society have to decide what to use.

And therefore, individual free choice may be a difficult conclusion. Is it really free choice when their culture and traditions decided what level of technology they would limit themselves to? Some of this technology nowadays is so advanced that leaving it up to just a few individuals to manage would be highly dangerous.

So, where I do agree with you that the community needs to decide the technology they are comfortable with, I'm not entirely confident that it's a matter of free choice.

no..we as a society don't have to do squat.
individuals decide...otherwise there is tyranny.

The relationship between technology and society has always been a complex one, even going back to early language acquisition like you referenced. That one technology vastly changed what communication means over the centuries. Going from spoken oral traditions to writing, to the printing press, to the telegraph, radio, television, and now the internet. We may choose to further technologies to further our needs, but not the unintended outcomes they tend to bring with them. And that can be it's own tyranny.

Gotta cite my source, since they like that kind of thing here. Though not really quoting, it's where I extrapolated my general idea.

*Neil Postman - "Amusing Ourselves to Death"

Nicely put, definitely good synthesis of each of our points!!