Reddit reviews The Technological Society

The Scharff and Dusek reader has been mentioned, but I'd like to put a plug in for the Kaplan reader as well.

The following are also worth checking out...

Peter Paul Verbeek's What Things Do (this is my "if you only read one book about Phil Tech, read this book" book)

Michel Callon's "The Sociology of an Actor-Network"

Don Ihde's Technology and the Lifeworld

Andy Feenberg's Questioning Technology

Albert Borgman's Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life

Martin Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology"

Lewis Mumford's Technics and Civilization

Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society

Langdon Winner's "Do Artifacts Have Politics" and The Whale and the Reactor

Hans Jonas' "Technology and Responsibility"

Sunstein and Thaler's Nudge

Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death

Nicholas Carr's The Shallows and The Glass Cage

empiricism implies that we cannot trust our brains. it eventually leads to reductionism (IMO) which implies everything can be (objectively) be boiled down to numbers as a final truth. its a very toxic and very new idea. when numbers become truth it has no other option but to turn society away from God (an atheist society is weak and foundationless) if you are really interested more about my viewpoints on this heres some reading that explains some of it better than i ever could:

https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysical-Foundations-Modern-Science/dp/0486425517


https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394703901

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525

https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political-Control/dp/1587314657 (this one is slightly less relevant but does go into how often empirical science's end goal is looking at humans as machines and how that is dehumanizing and controlling)

https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Against-Modern-World-Julius/dp/089281506X

https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Slavery-Collected-Kaczynski-k/dp/1932595805/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=11DZHECERPHPBMFXWJKR

This all sound quite interesting, thanks for the recommendation. I recently got the chance to make the acquaintance of a student of Willem H. Vanderberg and am now making my way through Living in the labyrith of technology. Vanderburg was himself a student of the french sociologist Jacque Ellul, building on ideas developped most famously in The technological society.

My assertions are axiomatic, and quite obviously so, at that. This is not a wise battle for you to pursue, unless you wish to descend into colonial European notions of manifest destiny and the white man's burden.

>>Those people are just as advanced as any other
>
>No, they're not.

Tell me, then: in a contest of using indigenous medicinal plants, who would prove "more advanced" - you, or these tribespeople? In determining who has superior herding techniques, which party would be the victor? In a comparison of familial kinship and relations? Spearcraft? Long-distance hiking? Animal husbandry?

There simply does not exist any way to declare any of these criteria "unimportant" without making a subjective assertion of your own personal values. And the people we're talking about would most certainly have a different class of values about those things. Why would your values be "more objective" than theirs - or anyone's? The answer is that they cannot be. It is your own opinion, and with any degree of humility, all genuinely reasonable people recoginze that, as I hope that you will, too.

>>Civilization and technology are specific types of advancements, but they are not objectively superior to any others
>
>Yes, they are.

Funny - there sure seem to be a great many very well-reasoned arguments against civilization and technology, even from those who have experienced the very height of their "advancement".

I certainly see no evidence for an objective declaration, even just by examing the meta-issue of the debate itself, which is undeniably still open.

>>to add "culture" in there is frankly just plain racist.
>
>No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. You have virtualy no notions of these people's culture. The very definition of "culture" practically prohibits the very idea of it being declared "advanced" or otherwise. It is simply the collection of common and traditional practices of a given group. I would even go so far as to say that if one were to make judgments of "advancement," surely a culture that has been largely uninterrupted and un-usurped for a period of thousands of years has matured and "advanced" far more than a culture which is ever-shifting and highly dependent on technological advances that didn't even exist a generation prior. But even to make an assertion such as that is meaningless, because the criterion "advancement" simply does not make sense when applied to culture - any culture. The only role that such a declaration can fulfill is to demean and devalue another group of people completely arbitrarily, as to support a racist or otherwise xenophobic worldview.

>By what standard are modern Western civilization, technology, and culture objectively superior to barefoot African tribesmen? By the only objective standard of value: their success at meeting the requirements of human life.

And just what are those "requirements of human life?" These tribespeople might tell you some very different things than what you would tell them. Would either of you be "right?" Absolutely not.

As for the rest of your points, they are all similarly obvious - and highly subjective, though largely incontroversial in our demographic - subjective and personal value judgments. Adding the word "objectively" to your statements does not make it so. Even such criteria as you have mentioned - lifespan, "individualism," property rights (lol), etc., are not objectively "advanced." After all, what are the "objective" benefits of a long lifespan if it is filled with ennui, alienation and oppression? What is the value of "individualism" to a person who cherishes deep bonds and shared struggle with others? How can one declare "property rights" to be an objective good when the very concept of such has only existed for a few hundred years, and has arguably led to the greatest ongoing extinction of species in millions of years?

You see? Value judgments, all of it. And for someone who might call themself a "libertarian," you certainly seem not to understand the true spirit of the credo, "live and let live."

Also regarding the critique of technology -

• Ivan Illich, e.g., Tools for Conviviality
  
• Jacques Ellul, e.g., The Technological Society
  
• Lewis Mumford, e.g., Myth of the Machine : Technics and Human Development.

And your appreciation of being alive matters nothing outside the context of this society that necessitates medical science intervention for its own preservation.

Linking Sam Harris is about the pinnacle of /r/im28andthinkIamsmarterthana14yearold. Sam Harris is precisely a symptom of the problem. You can't ever reasonably believe science can solve the problems of science without creating ever-compounding problems in its wake.

Read this instead, https://www.amazon.com/Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394703901. Funny enough, Ellul correctly predicts the arrival of the "Sam Harris" types, 10 years before Harris was even born.

Unfortunately, there are not many contrarian voices today, like Jacques Ellul. He wrote about the "technological," which is a much broader term than we typically use it. But his questions are quite relevant today. He didn't think the technological could be resisted, but he thought it should be critiqued.

Here's a documentary about him. His big book on the subject is The Technological Society.

Ted K had a lot of good points, he saw, as a lot of others see, how technology is becoming both the means and the end. I can suggest a couple of books for you, Technopoly by Neil Postman and The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul. The NSA is the least of your worries in the large scheme of things. The NSA cannot control you, but taxes can. Tracking is the prerequisite to unfettered taxation, think of it like this, you want to toast that bread in that new toaster that is connected to the internet via your smart meter and connected straight into your local power company? That'll be $1.00 or 1 BTC, or whatever. Everything you do will be taxed, there is no question of this. If you have to pay a tax to use or do anything you are a slave to the system. You need to think of the implications of this technology. They introduce it as a good thing, only for the real purposes of it to be implemented once the technology is ubiquitous. That is how it always works.