I know it's going to sound dumb, but a really great read for both technerds and the technology illiterate is Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman. It talks about the history of technology and how it affec
ts our culture in a way that's easy to understand and intellectually stimulating. Postman proposes the idea that instead of technology serving us as we assume, it actually ends up monopolizing us. Consider how you feel when you realize you've forgotten your cell phone somewhere, or when your computer won't work. Panic! What are you going to do without it?!? Postman describes:"Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deificaiton of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs. Those who feel most comfortable in Technopoly are those who are convinced that technical progress is humanity's superhuman achievement and the instrument by which our most profound dilemmas may be solved. They also believe that information is an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind. The fact that information does none of these things -- but quite the opposite -- seems to change few opinions, for unwavering beliefs are an inevitable product of the structure of Technopoly. In particular, Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down. "
*Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, New York, Vintage Books, p. 71.
** Image source: Gopher Madness Blog
2 comments:
WOW!!!!Go Girl Go !!! Theres alot of "STUFF" wrapped up in that Sole of Yours, I have read all of your entries and I'm ready for more. Thanks for the invitation to share your thoughts
Hey Annie! I love your blog! Since you asked for comments, here goes:
I think you're mixing up theology with morality and ethics. Not only are they not the same thing, but I think there's a fair argument to be made that the latter cannot be derived from the former.
I refer you to Plato's dialogue Euthyphro (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/uthph10.txt). In it, Plato poses a question which has bedeviled philosophers for thousands of years: "is ... the pious or holy .... beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods"? In other words, how do we know what is right and what is wrong? Does the moral rectitude of "divine law" derive from god's approbation, or does god merely give his imprimatur to some preexisting natural law? In the first case, we can give up trying to figure out why kindness is good and murder is bad, because the only reason is that god says so. (And, by implication, we should be thankful that god decided it this way, rather than the reverse; if good is based on the whims of god, it could have gone either way.)
Of course, if we take the second case to be true, then by creating divine law, god is merely signifying his approval of some preexisting natural law. If this is true, then why do we need god to tell us what is right and what is wrong? We can just go straight to the source.
Aside from the philosophical arguments, doesn't your intuition tell you that morality and theology are different things? For example, I'm an atheist, but I don't think you think of me as an amoral person. (At least I hope not! =P)
Keep up the good work! -d
Post a Comment