Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NovaPokeDad t1_j13smbc wrote

The author makes the point that “technology” is far too broad of a category to be considered an unmitigated good, and once you allow something through the door simply because it is higher technology you’re basically fucked.

4

KaladinThrasher t1_j15jy4g wrote

this right here. it's presumed that more or better technology will improve outcome's for society, yet if we observe the world there are technologies that are clearly not so, such as the nuke. but then, digging deeper into the nuance, "society" is always conflated with the state, as all the state is, is a representation of "society" (even though both empirically and logically that hasn't nor ever will be the case, else you wouldn't really need different words for it, now would you?)

plus, digging deeper, there's even technology nowadays that is antagonistic even to the state, so even taking that definition is troublesome.

this is why fundamentally we need to view technology as a multiplier, but a multiplier of what, need's to be questioned and ascertained. we need to consciously understand that most technology isn't "ideologically unbiased", that moral imperative's are usually baked into not only the technology we use, but also the very science they are based on.

3

mczucchini t1_j18k5ma wrote

Yep, if technology is the here all end all then why did the.industrial and technological revolutions and machine age result in people working more and more even with women entering the workforce.

1