Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc
Subject: The Neutrality of Technology
Message-ID: <445@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jul-86 15:12:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.445
Posted: Fri Jul 11 15:12:32 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jul-86 05:02:45 EDT
Reply-To: hplabs!taylor
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 66
Approved: taylor@hplabs

This article is from taylor@hpldat (Dave Taylor)
 and was received on Fri Jul 11 12:03:06 1986


I'd like to comment on a point Henry Spencer makes in a previous 
posting (just posted, so this'll be as new as that!).

Henry says "To repeat the point:  technology is *neutral*"

I can't agree.  This presupposes that there is a sort of 'perfect universe'
that we're attempting to acheive through our creations.  

The problem with this is that it's the same sort of idea that solipsism is, 
or the "what if we were created 60 seconds ago with all our memories intact" 
paradox - they're non-sequiturs.  That is, we can't really ascertain the 
truth of the statements, so we must either accept that they could be an 
alternative reality (so to speak...more in a 'sec) or go mad trying to 
disprove them in the process.

It insinuates that there must be alternative "universes" where objects 
aren't intrinsically an element of the larger whole.  We live in a world
where society, culture, and environment interact, however, and cannot
ignore it.

Objects *cannot* be considered without considering what they are being
utilized for, the materials they are made from, the moral and ethical
ramifications of their use, and so on.

That's what gets me about a lot of the military rhetoric - phrases like
"well sure this is actually an anti-personnel grenade, but I'm more 
interested in the physics of the problem..." are ridiculous, and worse,
are indicative of a divorcing of object and environment/culture/society 
that Henry is referring to.

As Arnold Pacey says in his very interesting book "The Culture Of Technology"
(MIT Press, 1983);

       "Thus in the world at large, it is argued that technology is 
	'essentially amoral, a thing apart from values, an instrument which
	can  be used for good or ill'.  So if people in distant countries
	starve; if infant mortality within the inner city is persistently
	high; if we feel threatened by nuclear destruction or more insidiously
	by the effects of chemical pollution, then all that, it is said, should
	not be blamed on technology, but on its misuse by politicians, the
	military, big business and others"

       "So is technology..neutral?  If we look at the construction of a
	basic machine and its working principles, the answer seems to be
	yes.  But if we look at the web of human activities surrounding
	the machine, which include its practical uses, its role as a status
	symbol...the skills of its owners, the answer is clearly no.  Looked 
        at this second way, technology is seen to be a part of life, not 
        something that can be kept in a separate compartment.  If it is to be 
	of any use [it] must fit into a pattern of activity which belongs to 
	a particlular lifestyle and set of values."

He probably makes the point better than I do, but the sentiment is the
same, namely that we cannot view technology independent of the culture,
society and environment that it is a part of.

["Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" has some interesting things
 to say on this topic too...]

	I welcome opposing views...

						-- Dave Taylor