But you're also saying that technology is neutral, no? It would seem then that any technology they create does not have any effect on society, its how society uses it?
May make sense if you're talking about basic technologies, but you were just talking about technology.
I wouldn't say “neutral,” and I certainly wouldn't say that “any technology they create does not have any effect on society.”
My point was that technology doesn't have a will of its own, and most technology can be used in either good or bad ways. So we should think less about whether a technology is inherently good or bad, and more about good vs. bad ways of living with it.
I can get behind this. Also sorry to barade you with questions, but it seems to me that our current paradigm of technology is to actually maximize its spread. Cars aren't really optional anymore and neither is an email. I would say the ubiquity of these devices have made life worse, but the people developing these technologies want them to be ubiquitous for money or the machine or what have you.
Marc Barnes put it well: if you're the only person with a car you're a God. If everyone else has a car you're in traffic.
Seems the tech development and the economy are married to each other in this way.
Would you say that making something that is destructive in large quantities addictive is bad?
If you were allowed free and easy access to coccaine as a child and got addicted, would it really be your fault?
> This responsibility exists at all levels: from society as a whole, to institutions, to families, down to each individual.
I don't think the author's saying that responsibility should only be at the individual level.
Idk he's saying that the builders should not consider the reprecussions of their actions.
Seems to kind of leave the consumer out in the dust.
I literally said “Companies should strive to design healthier products”
But you're also saying that technology is neutral, no? It would seem then that any technology they create does not have any effect on society, its how society uses it?
May make sense if you're talking about basic technologies, but you were just talking about technology.
I wouldn't say “neutral,” and I certainly wouldn't say that “any technology they create does not have any effect on society.”
My point was that technology doesn't have a will of its own, and most technology can be used in either good or bad ways. So we should think less about whether a technology is inherently good or bad, and more about good vs. bad ways of living with it.
I can get behind this. Also sorry to barade you with questions, but it seems to me that our current paradigm of technology is to actually maximize its spread. Cars aren't really optional anymore and neither is an email. I would say the ubiquity of these devices have made life worse, but the people developing these technologies want them to be ubiquitous for money or the machine or what have you.
Marc Barnes put it well: if you're the only person with a car you're a God. If everyone else has a car you're in traffic.
Seems the tech development and the economy are married to each other in this way.
I said “individuals and families” because parents have to protect their children.