archive
index

gp originals
google i
google ii
celebrating porn
idiot voters
 

Notice: GeekPress is back up and running, thanks to Paul! It's still a not-so-serious tech news blog, but the format is significantly looser. Diana, having given up programming for philosophy, has her own philosophical blog NoodleFood. More of her work can be found at DianaHsieh.com.

 

The Birth of Anti-Technology

7:53:10 am mst / 1 March 2001 found by diana / filed in politics / source Reason 125 hits / 3 comments / 0 e-mails

The anti-technology movement is gaining steam as more and more veterans of the civil rights, peace, and environmental movements set their sights on the terrible dangers of all things new and shiny. One activist at a recent conference "demanded that society broadly adopt the 'precautionary principle,' the notion that before any new development in science and technology can be used, it must be shown to have no negative impact."

Ack! Save me! The future is coming! The future is coming!

Comments

This comment board has been retired.

Luddites by MysteriousStranger 1:17:20 pm mst / 1 March 2001 / # 1

I'm not sure how to react first - the "movement," if there really is one, is not really new -- the article itself mentions the Luddites who have been around for quite a while now, although they may prefer to be called Neo-Luddites now. I don't think there is any morality implicit in any technology, but some people react as though these changes are evil. And I think that if you see some technology is evil, then you have to question everything. How many people have been killed by cars like the one you drive? By the gas you fuel your car with? By the equipment roads are built with? By bridges that have failed? How many times have you hurt yourself with a hammer? How many people have been killed with them? Have you ever stepped on a nail? How evil is that? I could go on and on, but fundamentally you have to accept that some risk is part of being alive, and move on to living thoughtfully and taking responsibility for your actions. In the end, there are no laws that can change human behavior. People will experiment with things. Some experiments will fail horribly and spectacularly. Other experiments will work and we will all gain from that.

Propaganda as usual.... by MysteriousStranger 1:33:20 pm mst / 1 March 2001 / # 2

Ah yes, yes, let's hammer on that two-value logic, in this case, anyone who wants to increase the social and economic accountability of those who deploy new technologies, is Against Technology. That reminds me of the folks who say that anyone who wants the WTO to back off on its use of threats of embargo and other penalties to overturn local labor, environmental, and tariff laws is Against Trade. Count me as a person who is Against Reducing Complex Issues to One Bit Sound Bytes.

Real Threat to Technology is Christian Right by steelydan 11:02:40 pm mst / 1 March 2001 / # 3

Well, I found the spectacle of the Neo-Luddites to be alarming. I actually like Jeremy Rifkin, have seen him speak twice, and I don't think that concerns about ruthless multinationals controlling the genome are unfounded. But the important thing is that the entire crew that you speak of is marginal politically. (What's kind of interesting is that they are kind of an aging lot. They would all benefit from some of the aging therapies that should reach maturation in the next decade or so. I certainly hope they choose life, just for the irony of it all.) I believe that Virginia Postrel has it more on the mark by stating that there are people on the left and the right who, for whatever reasons, are opposed to change. The American left, of which I'm a part, is kind of powerless. (But I might add, that I'm a leftist who believes in technology. I don't think just saying "stop" is a responsible intellectual argument.) The Christian Right, on the other hand, has a pal in the White House who thinks creationism is a real theory. They have real power and no doubt once the powers of these new technologies occur to them they will oppose them. Afterall, if we can create heaven on Earth, and I refer here to the most optimistic of the Drexler visions, who would need a religion or Pat Robertson to interpret it for you. Imagine if there was no heaven, imagine if you try indeed. Philip Shropshire www.threerivertechreview.com www.majic12.com

e-mail steelydan