The case for pessimism on technology

Most conjecturing and theorizing about technology is tainted by moral positivism. Even the lowliest gadget blog (Engadget or Gizmodo come to mind) can trace their lineage to the early projects of scientific enlightenment. Tall words coming from a blog that purports towards the development of a ‘theory of technology’, you might say. Indeed, undertaking even the most cursory examination of technology and its place in modern society (as if the two were somehow separable) is destined to be bent and manipulated by this pervasive, technological optimism. The belief that technology is good is fundamental to almost all human philosophy. Is it not artifice and craftsmanship that sets humans apart from animals? We reason that our frail, fragile bodies are more than made up for by our ability to adapt to any situation with our ability to adapt the environment that surrounds us to suit our purposes (Inuit tribes).

What, then, prompts our discussion today? If there is one thing which gives intellectuals reason for comfort it is the progression of technology. “Deliver us,” most pray, “from the sweaty hands of religious fundamentalists and our Paleolithic fellow-man”. With extremism popping up everywhere and the environment gone awry, there is little that seems to stand in the way between humanity and utter oblivion than our time-tested ability to get ourselves out of binds with the tools we make.

But that is just it: so far, industry, hard work, and ingenuity have saved humanity from its (often self-inflicted) destruction. What is there to say that things will continue to be so. My suggestion is not simply a petty adaptation of Hume to modern times, but a valid question to be asked of every person who believes in technology as part and parcel for humanity’s progress. Humans have pretensions towards enlightened thought and physical capability beyond their god-given means. We explore space, we turn over rocks on the bottom of the deepest of oceans. Yet one inescapable fact remains. As much as we may distance ourselves from animals, it is still bare, animal necessity that drives us.

An optimist (or a capitalist more likely) would praise animal necessity as the progenitor of all progress; I do not dispute this fact. Ask yourself: is man’s ability to think beyond his means the very undoing of his existence? I do not intend to turn this bit of words into praise for the ‘noble savage’, who lives off of the land and does not challenge the might of his gods. But the question would do well to be asked: If the collective natural costs for all of the technological innovations which we hold in exultations were to be comprehended by all men, could we still justify our headlong rush into technocracy?