"To invent something is to invent an accident. To invent the ship is to invent the shipwreck; the space shuttle, the explosion. And to invent the electronic superhighway or the Internet is to invent a major risk that is not easily spotted because it does not produce fatalities like a shipwreck or a mid-air explosion. The information accident is, sadly, not very visible. It is immaterial like the waves that carry information."
I'm not fan of academic theoriticians of technology though, because they are complacent and thinks that there is a way to reform, there is none.
Or the human agency do something or there will be no humanity left, simple as.
That's an excellent quote, thanks. It's true of course that we have no choice but to try to build a functioning world, even as we know we are thereby building its problems. It's easy to point to the problems, harder to do the building. I should probably write a post about this.
Yes, talking indeed is so easy and what is to be done is hard. It is hard precisely because what is involved to make a solid and cohesive community, counterculture or what have you, what is involved are human relations, the I-Thou. The only real metaphysics that there is and not so metaphysical.. because it's still of this world.
The material and the rational are of great importance no doubt, but they alone will end in ruin.
This is stimulating. Design and Technology are often lumped together, but it is useful to tease them apart.
By the way, I also listened to that podcast and found TC's position on social media utterly baffling. The stuff about AI summarising your Tweets and Tiktoks as a way of reducing social pressures was incredibly wrongheaded.
Neil, sorry for my late reply, I've been travelling.
I also thought Cowen sounded quite silly in that conversation. He reminds me of those people during the industrial revolution who tried to argue there was nothing wrong with women and children working 10+ hour shifts in factories, because they freely entered into employment on those terms.
Wessie, nicely done! I often tell my CS friends they are a commodity -- the vast majority of computer science is an effort to make money, usually by establishing some sort of monopoly, or (like so much technology) driven by security concerns. They don't like it. But the design process, while often bespoke, is about solving things. Certain moral blinders, as Oppenheimer admitted to. I tried to talk about ethics in the design context in the inaugural podcast of the Center for Cybersocial Dynamics at the University of Kansas. Spoiler: Gatling, of Gatling gun fame, was a pretty ethical guy.
With regard to Cowan's weird faith that technology will be good, it's baked into the economist worldview. Invisible hand and all that. It's a sort of primitive, secularized, Christianity (without the fall, without sin). Mary Harrington has a nice piece on tech progress, especially in the US, as a sublimated Christian discourse.
Thanks for sharing this podcast David, very much looking forward to listening to it. It's true of course that history is often more tragic than the formula "design = intention" allows. The worst consequences of design are often not intentional. I should probably address this in another post.
And yes, there is something eschatological about the economist's faith in technology. For Cowen, I think it boils down to the assertion that GDP growth basically means life getting better (I don't buy it). The weirdness really comes through when he uses terms like productivity to evaluate everyday experience.
I was trained in the heyday of law and economics. Everything was reduced to efficiency and rationalism . . . neither of which worked out very well. Most of my scholarly output has been vis-a-vis this sort of stuff. Cowan is a relatively humane/thoughtful/soft version of the worldview.
A classic from P. Virilio:
"To invent something is to invent an accident. To invent the ship is to invent the shipwreck; the space shuttle, the explosion. And to invent the electronic superhighway or the Internet is to invent a major risk that is not easily spotted because it does not produce fatalities like a shipwreck or a mid-air explosion. The information accident is, sadly, not very visible. It is immaterial like the waves that carry information."
I'm not fan of academic theoriticians of technology though, because they are complacent and thinks that there is a way to reform, there is none.
Or the human agency do something or there will be no humanity left, simple as.
That's an excellent quote, thanks. It's true of course that we have no choice but to try to build a functioning world, even as we know we are thereby building its problems. It's easy to point to the problems, harder to do the building. I should probably write a post about this.
Yes, talking indeed is so easy and what is to be done is hard. It is hard precisely because what is involved to make a solid and cohesive community, counterculture or what have you, what is involved are human relations, the I-Thou. The only real metaphysics that there is and not so metaphysical.. because it's still of this world.
The material and the rational are of great importance no doubt, but they alone will end in ruin.
This is stimulating. Design and Technology are often lumped together, but it is useful to tease them apart.
By the way, I also listened to that podcast and found TC's position on social media utterly baffling. The stuff about AI summarising your Tweets and Tiktoks as a way of reducing social pressures was incredibly wrongheaded.
There's some good reactions on his blog: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/04/my-contentious-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt.html#comments
Neil, sorry for my late reply, I've been travelling.
I also thought Cowen sounded quite silly in that conversation. He reminds me of those people during the industrial revolution who tried to argue there was nothing wrong with women and children working 10+ hour shifts in factories, because they freely entered into employment on those terms.
Wessie, nicely done! I often tell my CS friends they are a commodity -- the vast majority of computer science is an effort to make money, usually by establishing some sort of monopoly, or (like so much technology) driven by security concerns. They don't like it. But the design process, while often bespoke, is about solving things. Certain moral blinders, as Oppenheimer admitted to. I tried to talk about ethics in the design context in the inaugural podcast of the Center for Cybersocial Dynamics at the University of Kansas. Spoiler: Gatling, of Gatling gun fame, was a pretty ethical guy.
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/center-for-cyber/center-for-cyber-social-ngvpPyBQ61O/
With regard to Cowan's weird faith that technology will be good, it's baked into the economist worldview. Invisible hand and all that. It's a sort of primitive, secularized, Christianity (without the fall, without sin). Mary Harrington has a nice piece on tech progress, especially in the US, as a sublimated Christian discourse.
https://reactionaryfeminist.substack.com/p/immanentising-the-eschaton?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Keep up the excellent work. "Designs" indeed!
Thanks for sharing this podcast David, very much looking forward to listening to it. It's true of course that history is often more tragic than the formula "design = intention" allows. The worst consequences of design are often not intentional. I should probably address this in another post.
And yes, there is something eschatological about the economist's faith in technology. For Cowen, I think it boils down to the assertion that GDP growth basically means life getting better (I don't buy it). The weirdness really comes through when he uses terms like productivity to evaluate everyday experience.
I was trained in the heyday of law and economics. Everything was reduced to efficiency and rationalism . . . neither of which worked out very well. Most of my scholarly output has been vis-a-vis this sort of stuff. Cowan is a relatively humane/thoughtful/soft version of the worldview.