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.
Well, gee, I say thank heavens for all this isolation. I live in a small city in the Australian tropics, but I can easily (and comfortably) travel to locales all over the world and connect and re-connect with people I care about.
The tools and wonders at our disposal require active thinking, too. They always have. You CAN switch off your phone. You CAN ignore obnoxious social media flame wars. You CAN read more without distractions, and the list goes on.
Side note: when I moved into my current house, I was delighted to discover my lovely neighbours. I found an area where people are friendly and sociable. I could CHOOSE to be a loner, but instead I CHOOSE to engage. Heaven help us – in 2025 people still talk to each other. :-)
Problems described here is little to do with technology and largely about capitalism exploiting those. Notifications, distractions, social media influence - all driven by profits. Trying to meliorate that as technology problem is just endless plugging of leaky boat.
"we should take an active or agentic perspective on the effects of technology and our relationship to it, rather than a passive or fatalistic one. Instead of viewing technology as an external force that acts on us, we should view it as opening up a new landscape of choices and possibilities, which we must navigate."
Why is this "rather than" and "instead of"? Why not "also" and "in addition"?
Why should we never view technology as a force that acts on people, and always think of people as doing the acting? Why should we ignore the knowledge we have of how people are likely to behave, and only ever try to figure out the ideal way for people to behave?
It seems to me that we can do both of these things. We can think both about what effects technology is likely to have on people who have habits shaped by the technological and societal context of the recent past, and what changes to these habits might lead to better outcomes.
I can agree that it is my responsibility to try to think about the optimal way for myself to use a technology, but I think it is *also* the responsibility of everyone who designs a technology to put it forward in the way that will be optimal for all people. There is plenty of responsibility to go around, and we shouldn't be trying to deflect responsibility in any direction.
We know for a fact that some people will do things suboptimally, so designers *should* take that into account. We also know for a fact that some designers will design technology suboptimally, so users *should* take that into account.
I think I agree with that, which is why I wrote: “This responsibility exists at all levels: from society as a whole, to institutions, to families, down to each individual. Companies should strive to design healthier products…” etc.
Technology changes the set of choices open to us. Yes, it changes the economy, and so it changes what other people are willing to pay you to do. But generally the new options it opens up are better than the ones it closes off. We left behind the ability to make a good living as a blacksmith, but we also eradicated smallpox, ended famine, and connected the world in trade and cultural exchange. I think it's a damn good tradeoff.
If you don't like your options participating in an advanced market economy, you can form your own community like the Amish or something, or you can move to a less advanced country, or if all else fails you can live like a hermit in the woods. In any case, you won't be living worse than many of your ancestors in the past that you seem to prefer.
But if you can't or don't want to do that, then you're just complaining that the rest of the world isn't behaving in ways that are acceptable to or convenient for you.
There is no such thing, in reality, as infinite choice. You will always have some options and not others. In general we have many *more* options now than in the past, even if some that we may romanticize are gone.
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.
Well, gee, I say thank heavens for all this isolation. I live in a small city in the Australian tropics, but I can easily (and comfortably) travel to locales all over the world and connect and re-connect with people I care about.
The tools and wonders at our disposal require active thinking, too. They always have. You CAN switch off your phone. You CAN ignore obnoxious social media flame wars. You CAN read more without distractions, and the list goes on.
Side note: when I moved into my current house, I was delighted to discover my lovely neighbours. I found an area where people are friendly and sociable. I could CHOOSE to be a loner, but instead I CHOOSE to engage. Heaven help us – in 2025 people still talk to each other. :-)
Problems described here is little to do with technology and largely about capitalism exploiting those. Notifications, distractions, social media influence - all driven by profits. Trying to meliorate that as technology problem is just endless plugging of leaky boat.
"we should take an active or agentic perspective on the effects of technology and our relationship to it, rather than a passive or fatalistic one. Instead of viewing technology as an external force that acts on us, we should view it as opening up a new landscape of choices and possibilities, which we must navigate."
Why is this "rather than" and "instead of"? Why not "also" and "in addition"?
Why should we never view technology as a force that acts on people, and always think of people as doing the acting? Why should we ignore the knowledge we have of how people are likely to behave, and only ever try to figure out the ideal way for people to behave?
It seems to me that we can do both of these things. We can think both about what effects technology is likely to have on people who have habits shaped by the technological and societal context of the recent past, and what changes to these habits might lead to better outcomes.
I can agree that it is my responsibility to try to think about the optimal way for myself to use a technology, but I think it is *also* the responsibility of everyone who designs a technology to put it forward in the way that will be optimal for all people. There is plenty of responsibility to go around, and we shouldn't be trying to deflect responsibility in any direction.
We know for a fact that some people will do things suboptimally, so designers *should* take that into account. We also know for a fact that some designers will design technology suboptimally, so users *should* take that into account.
I think I agree with that, which is why I wrote: “This responsibility exists at all levels: from society as a whole, to institutions, to families, down to each individual. Companies should strive to design healthier products…” etc.
What's an example where you're not “allowed” to deal with technology as you wish, where you don't have the option?
Technology changes the set of choices open to us. Yes, it changes the economy, and so it changes what other people are willing to pay you to do. But generally the new options it opens up are better than the ones it closes off. We left behind the ability to make a good living as a blacksmith, but we also eradicated smallpox, ended famine, and connected the world in trade and cultural exchange. I think it's a damn good tradeoff.
If you don't like your options participating in an advanced market economy, you can form your own community like the Amish or something, or you can move to a less advanced country, or if all else fails you can live like a hermit in the woods. In any case, you won't be living worse than many of your ancestors in the past that you seem to prefer.
But if you can't or don't want to do that, then you're just complaining that the rest of the world isn't behaving in ways that are acceptable to or convenient for you.
There is no such thing, in reality, as infinite choice. You will always have some options and not others. In general we have many *more* options now than in the past, even if some that we may romanticize are gone.