Critiqueing the Critique of Technology
I was debating someone with anarcho-primitivist leanings, so decided to post my reply, as it pertains to the critique of technology in a general sense.
Re: hmmm
"If as an anarchist you oppose all forms of oppression why is it that technology always evades critique in your circles? and dont say it is because technology is not inherently bad because neither is verbal communication but you wont hesitate to critique that when it is used for something like racism for example."
I'll bite, but I'm only going to consider your question, ignoring anything that has been posted so far in the thread, for the sake of brevity and clarity.
In order for us to discuss or critique technology we need some sort of functional definition, and technology is such a broad concept, a definition can be elusive. As most people think of technology, and as your question seems to imply, technology is tools used by humans (and some animals too) in order to adapt and control the surrounding environment for our benefit. A pretty good definition, but I would include systems and methods of organization like mathematics and social institutions as well. Furthermore, the threshold for technology is simply human intent. As soon as one picks up a rock with the intent to use it, from a hammer to a weapon, it is technology. This means that all natural resources are potentially technology, no conversion or refinement required. All that is needed is a species capable of intentionally utilizing natural resources to adapt and control their environment for their own benefit. In order to be rid of technology, we would have to be incapable of what I stated in the sentence immediately previous. And that is an absurd proposition as then anarchism is pointless because we would not be sentient enough to understand freedom or oppression in the first place..
Oppression on the other hand, is fundamentally human because it is a social condition. It is the exercise of authority by one human (or sentient being, if you prefer a broader definition) over another in a way that is burdensome, unjust or cruel, always as the result of a power imbalance in human relationships. What exactly constitutes burdensome authority has been a long running political debate, and in the case of anarchism, all authority is burdensome and therefore fundamentally oppressive. Anarchism expands the definition but does not alter it, and as a political philosophy seeks to eliminate all authority and therefore oppression (well duh :roll:).
That technology has been used by humans to oppress other humans is virtually a truism, with an abundance of historical and contemporary examples to illustrate the point. However, while technology is of us, technology is not us. While a common response to the critique of technology is to say it is neither good nor bad, but rather morally neutral is not entirely correct. It is correct to put the ethical onus on humans as the user, but to call technology ethically neutral is to miss the point. It is simply outside of human ethics in the first place. Technology cannot be oppressive in much the same way that nature cannot be oppressive, because both are non human. Technology is neither oppressive or liberating, but it can serve either cause equally well, depending on the intentions and skills of the users.
The critique of technology does have a valid point that is not easily addressed by praising or blaming the user for the outcome. Technology is not simply a tool like a knife where positive or negative effects result from user intent. Technology is transformative - we only have to look around ourselves to see this. It can (and has) alter the way we live, interact, work, entertain and even think. Technology has caused a great deal of positive transformations (industrialization for example), as well as its share of negative ones (global warming as a result of industrialization). The kinds of technology that is developed and how it is used is shaped by social factors, but that technology also transforms those social factors, which in turn shape the development and use of new technologies and so on. In short, our intentions shape what we develop and what we develop shapes our intentions. This process is accelerating and we are not fully in control of this process. We never have been. In a lab right now something is being developed that will considerably transform our society in five years. This change will not be collectively legislated or individually dictated. Even the researchers do not have that kind of control. However we are not totally powerless in influencing this process and we never have been, and it is very important to understand that technology can have a negative impact on us, even without any negative intentions on our part.
Homo Sapiens was always such a misleading name. Homo Faber is a better name because it tells what we really are without implying any sort of wisdom. We're tool using apes with an unusually highly developed cerebral cortex. This brings me around to me around to my last point. Going back simply isn't possible. Even some horrible setback (short of complete human extinction) cannot be permanent (although evolution tends to greater complexity, and tool using sentients are high on the complexity spectrum), as the process simply begins again. Using technology is an integral part of our species in a very biological sense. We use technology all the time without even thinking about it.
So to summarize what I discussed in order to answer your question in a few sentences: Technology should not be allowed to evade critique because its transformative effects have negative consequences, besides extremely positive consequences. However technology in and of itself is not inherently bad because it is not human and therefore outside human ethics. Oppression is a social condition resulting from an imbalance in power in human relationships. Technology can affect the oppression by making it worse or better, or transforming the nature of it. And finally technology is part of who we are. If anarchism is to be a serious alternative, and I think it is, this inescapable fact must be taken into account. Just as the fact that humans can and will act in oppressive ways, which is at the root of our problems, not technology or civilization.
Re: hmmm
"If as an anarchist you oppose all forms of oppression why is it that technology always evades critique in your circles? and dont say it is because technology is not inherently bad because neither is verbal communication but you wont hesitate to critique that when it is used for something like racism for example."
I'll bite, but I'm only going to consider your question, ignoring anything that has been posted so far in the thread, for the sake of brevity and clarity.
In order for us to discuss or critique technology we need some sort of functional definition, and technology is such a broad concept, a definition can be elusive. As most people think of technology, and as your question seems to imply, technology is tools used by humans (and some animals too) in order to adapt and control the surrounding environment for our benefit. A pretty good definition, but I would include systems and methods of organization like mathematics and social institutions as well. Furthermore, the threshold for technology is simply human intent. As soon as one picks up a rock with the intent to use it, from a hammer to a weapon, it is technology. This means that all natural resources are potentially technology, no conversion or refinement required. All that is needed is a species capable of intentionally utilizing natural resources to adapt and control their environment for their own benefit. In order to be rid of technology, we would have to be incapable of what I stated in the sentence immediately previous. And that is an absurd proposition as then anarchism is pointless because we would not be sentient enough to understand freedom or oppression in the first place..
Oppression on the other hand, is fundamentally human because it is a social condition. It is the exercise of authority by one human (or sentient being, if you prefer a broader definition) over another in a way that is burdensome, unjust or cruel, always as the result of a power imbalance in human relationships. What exactly constitutes burdensome authority has been a long running political debate, and in the case of anarchism, all authority is burdensome and therefore fundamentally oppressive. Anarchism expands the definition but does not alter it, and as a political philosophy seeks to eliminate all authority and therefore oppression (well duh :roll:).
That technology has been used by humans to oppress other humans is virtually a truism, with an abundance of historical and contemporary examples to illustrate the point. However, while technology is of us, technology is not us. While a common response to the critique of technology is to say it is neither good nor bad, but rather morally neutral is not entirely correct. It is correct to put the ethical onus on humans as the user, but to call technology ethically neutral is to miss the point. It is simply outside of human ethics in the first place. Technology cannot be oppressive in much the same way that nature cannot be oppressive, because both are non human. Technology is neither oppressive or liberating, but it can serve either cause equally well, depending on the intentions and skills of the users.
The critique of technology does have a valid point that is not easily addressed by praising or blaming the user for the outcome. Technology is not simply a tool like a knife where positive or negative effects result from user intent. Technology is transformative - we only have to look around ourselves to see this. It can (and has) alter the way we live, interact, work, entertain and even think. Technology has caused a great deal of positive transformations (industrialization for example), as well as its share of negative ones (global warming as a result of industrialization). The kinds of technology that is developed and how it is used is shaped by social factors, but that technology also transforms those social factors, which in turn shape the development and use of new technologies and so on. In short, our intentions shape what we develop and what we develop shapes our intentions. This process is accelerating and we are not fully in control of this process. We never have been. In a lab right now something is being developed that will considerably transform our society in five years. This change will not be collectively legislated or individually dictated. Even the researchers do not have that kind of control. However we are not totally powerless in influencing this process and we never have been, and it is very important to understand that technology can have a negative impact on us, even without any negative intentions on our part.
Homo Sapiens was always such a misleading name. Homo Faber is a better name because it tells what we really are without implying any sort of wisdom. We're tool using apes with an unusually highly developed cerebral cortex. This brings me around to me around to my last point. Going back simply isn't possible. Even some horrible setback (short of complete human extinction) cannot be permanent (although evolution tends to greater complexity, and tool using sentients are high on the complexity spectrum), as the process simply begins again. Using technology is an integral part of our species in a very biological sense. We use technology all the time without even thinking about it.
So to summarize what I discussed in order to answer your question in a few sentences: Technology should not be allowed to evade critique because its transformative effects have negative consequences, besides extremely positive consequences. However technology in and of itself is not inherently bad because it is not human and therefore outside human ethics. Oppression is a social condition resulting from an imbalance in power in human relationships. Technology can affect the oppression by making it worse or better, or transforming the nature of it. And finally technology is part of who we are. If anarchism is to be a serious alternative, and I think it is, this inescapable fact must be taken into account. Just as the fact that humans can and will act in oppressive ways, which is at the root of our problems, not technology or civilization.