Post #3898543

I've (in the distant past) taken multiple courses on the ethics of technology, so I've definitely been exposed to this viewpoint. I disagree with it. I admit, I haven't read the specific book you pointed at, but I would imagine that it mirrors Ursula Franklin, and to a lesser extent, Neil Postman. Rejecting the idea that technology has inherent ethical value isn't the same as absolving it of harm. Remove the people, and technology is just a very intricate pile of rocks and metal. Deciding that technology has inherent moral value outside of how people chose to use it makes it too easy to avoid reckoning with the social context of technology. Rejecting that forces you to reckon with the full interaction of technology and humanity. The harms and benefits technology cause are intricately intertwined with social structure, ideology, politics and human behavior. Accepting technology's neutrality, though, means that you need to reckon with the complexity of social interaction. You need to defend not just against the things you label as "bad", but also the things you label as "good". Moral neutrality is not the same as having no social impacts. And while some, er, ballistic impact, translates pretty directly to social impact, a huge amount of indirect impact is far more ambiguous. Even if we can use it for huge good, we need to be careful to defend against downsides. Trying to label technology outside of social structures is too dangerous for me to accept. CC: @mntmn@mastodon.social @OliviaVespera@spacey.space