Great to see Pathos going again. Tool making/use is definitely part of our obligate sentience (as organisms, we can no longer survive without it). Thoureau bemoaned men becoming the tools of their tools, but I like your proposed framework a little better—a blurred line between tool and maker/user doesn’t mean extinction/erasure of the user (nor does it tell us anything unavoidable so far about our future).
Thank you, it's good to be back. I was thinking about the tool problem from a linguistic perspective, and the ambiguity exists there too (at least in European languages). Verbs like "drive" or "write," which make no reference to the objects being used, imply an identity of person and tool. But then nouns like "driver" or "author" can denote a role rather than an identity. Anyway, it's the kind of subject you can turn around in your hands for ever.
I've thought about this too — we've been evolving as tool-users since we were at least the aptly named Homo habilis. Tools are so ingrained in what it means to be human that we've evolved alongside them. The invention of fire, for instance, probably altered, at least, our digestive system and sleep cycles. In that sense, openness to innovation is good and normal, but the level of innovation we currently have at our fingertips presents a unique picture. Historically, innovation been relatively slow — in the case of fire, we've had a few hundred thousand years to evolve to fit its role in our lives, both biologically and culturally.
In the past, say, thousand years, the development of science and the access to global materials has resulted in a rate of innovation so rapid that we're constantly introduced to new inventions before we have time to adapt to old ones. This impressive rate is by evidenced certain historically unprecedented statistics such as low infant mortality and world population.
But the greater quantity of innovation requires us to sharpen our ability for identifying value. Unless you deontologically reject most innovation Amish-style, there's much more discernment and evaluation of tools that's necessary to identify which innovations are valuable to human flourishing, which are futile, and which are counter-productive.
Very well put: "the greater quantity of innovation requires us to sharpen our ability for identifying value." I was tempted to say more about our historical co-evolution with tools, but you've done it nicely here. Fire and language are perhaps the ultimate examples.
It is an apposite point: discern, distinguish, and choose: be smart to adapt, be brave to reject. Make good use of tools, reject intrusions into human thinking. The domination of Google chips over our brains is anything but inevitable. It depends on every of us, how much of their incursion into our lives we allow.
Great to see Pathos going again. Tool making/use is definitely part of our obligate sentience (as organisms, we can no longer survive without it). Thoureau bemoaned men becoming the tools of their tools, but I like your proposed framework a little better—a blurred line between tool and maker/user doesn’t mean extinction/erasure of the user (nor does it tell us anything unavoidable so far about our future).
Thank you, it's good to be back. I was thinking about the tool problem from a linguistic perspective, and the ambiguity exists there too (at least in European languages). Verbs like "drive" or "write," which make no reference to the objects being used, imply an identity of person and tool. But then nouns like "driver" or "author" can denote a role rather than an identity. Anyway, it's the kind of subject you can turn around in your hands for ever.
Great essay!
I've thought about this too — we've been evolving as tool-users since we were at least the aptly named Homo habilis. Tools are so ingrained in what it means to be human that we've evolved alongside them. The invention of fire, for instance, probably altered, at least, our digestive system and sleep cycles. In that sense, openness to innovation is good and normal, but the level of innovation we currently have at our fingertips presents a unique picture. Historically, innovation been relatively slow — in the case of fire, we've had a few hundred thousand years to evolve to fit its role in our lives, both biologically and culturally.
In the past, say, thousand years, the development of science and the access to global materials has resulted in a rate of innovation so rapid that we're constantly introduced to new inventions before we have time to adapt to old ones. This impressive rate is by evidenced certain historically unprecedented statistics such as low infant mortality and world population.
But the greater quantity of innovation requires us to sharpen our ability for identifying value. Unless you deontologically reject most innovation Amish-style, there's much more discernment and evaluation of tools that's necessary to identify which innovations are valuable to human flourishing, which are futile, and which are counter-productive.
Very well put: "the greater quantity of innovation requires us to sharpen our ability for identifying value." I was tempted to say more about our historical co-evolution with tools, but you've done it nicely here. Fire and language are perhaps the ultimate examples.
Such a fascinating topic. Donna Haraway may have been the first to really explore it in her essay "The Cyborg Manifesto."
I wasn't aware of this essay, thank you for mentioning it!
It is an apposite point: discern, distinguish, and choose: be smart to adapt, be brave to reject. Make good use of tools, reject intrusions into human thinking. The domination of Google chips over our brains is anything but inevitable. It depends on every of us, how much of their incursion into our lives we allow.
Good luck with refreshed writing!
As always you manage to summarise my case better than I could! Thank you for the good luck, I will need it.