• JohnLocke
    18
    I like to observe and reflect on my observations of society. One of the biggest changes. have noticed in society is the use of technology as a replacement for traditional modes of human communication. For example, I am a student and much of my studying and communication is conducted via assistive technology such as Zoom. This change is largely a consequence of the pandemic and lockdown. It raises all kinds of ethical problems relating to technological discrimination and so on. One of the biggest problems I have with using technology to communicate is that it attempts to blend all of society together, kind of like a homogenising force, and spread out all of humanity onto a flat disk, like spreading butter on a piece of bread...

    To thinly spread out all of humanity this way has many consequences which are very subtle and not noticeable because they transcend the act of doing what the technology is designed to do, which is to facilitate communication, but that act of communication in this new style has many indirect consequences and the most obvious one I worry about most is ORIGINALITY... Communicating via technology is a further step towards the implementation of technology into human day to day life and society, as a consequence of the technological revolution, but this is not how humans have communication historically and I worry that it will have grave implications for the progression of humanity as a productive and creative species. For example, I would argue that by placing all of humanity onto a technological communicative structure such as online communication like social media / zoom and so on diminishes original communication, constraints the essence of creativity and formulation and discovery of new ideas, thoughts and ultimately is a block to individual progression and thus the progression of the human species.

    For example, much of the discoveries in humanity come from the Renaissance and scientific revolution where there was no downward existential force constraining human communication at a human to human level, thus allowing human beings to thrive emotionally and be in that state of being able to create and derive new ideas. So... now we face, I would argue, the problem of technology being too assistive to communication in that it removes creativity at the sharp end and reduces the boundaries of human individual creativity between different groups of humans insofar that it homogenises what were once intrinsically different societies in social and cultural terms by removing the essence of creativity force. BUT it is this very creative ability which is often thought of as being too individualistic in a globalised word where racial and biological differences are simply social construct, not biological. It is not something which must be preserved or catered for in a globalising and homogenising society where humanity is assimilating with technology at the cost of losing this creativity originality.

    So, humanity, while likely being increasingly technologically efficient, will not be as individually creative in the Renaissance sense of true creativity, but rather this sense of creativity will likely come from computer assisted and thus replicable algorithms insofar as to diminish and obscure individualism in society. In other words, using technology to communicate is bad for our species if creativity is to be valued and preserved, not just replicable creativity, but true essence of creativity which cannot be replicated by technology, but is good if you believe in the diminishment of individuality and personal expression. I guess human beings will be thought of as kind of like pieces of replicable code, which doesn't have that creative force, for that will be neutered by technology, and so communication will become more commodified and standardised and individual expression will be predictable and replicable in the sense that it prioritises emotional protection at a cost of limiting the creation of new ideas. Thoughts...?
  • _db
    3.6k
    One of the biggest problems I have with using technology to communicate is that it attempts to blend all of society together, kind of like a homogenising force, and spread out all of humanity onto a flat disk, like spreading butter on a piece of bread...JohnLocke

    In order words, technology circulates the myth of the "average" man (who does not exist), and each person is then compared to this average, which is often used to determine their value.

    but that act of communication in this new style has many indirect consequences and the most obvious one I worry about most is ORIGINALITY.JohnLocke

    Indeed :up:

    So, humanity, while likely being increasingly technologically efficient, will not be as individually creative in the Renaissance sense of true creativity, but rather this sense of creativity will likely come from computer assisted and thus replicable algorithms insofar as to diminish and obscure individualism in society.JohnLocke

    Yes very good point :ok:

    I guess human beings will be thought of as kind of like pieces of replicable codeJohnLocke

    Correct, humans are programmed to be a certain way, to think a certain way, to do things a certain way, etc. Technique (more broad than "technology") aims to find the most efficient way of doing things, and in the process it destroys everything else. The right way to do things is the most efficient way, according to technique, even if this means removing individual creativity and autonomy.

    Thoughts...?JohnLocke

    Aside from what I wrote previously, you really need to use paragraphs. There are good ideas here but it's very difficult to understand when it's just a massive chunk of text.

    If you have not already, I recommend reading Jacques Ellul.
  • JohnLocke
    18


    If I have time I will read but I'm very busy now...

    I can also see how technology might advance human creativity too. I think there are two types of creativity I talk about. The first is what I describe as creativity in the truest most original sense. This creativity cannot be replicated by technology like code or computers and so on. It is this creativity which drove the Renaissance and enlightenment and why creativity was worshipped and glorified in art and so on.

    BUT... the second kind of creativity is simply replicable creativity. It is universal in the sense that it can be replicated by code and everyone can do it because there will be templates to do it, like stencil artwork, and so on.

    BUT I can also see how the use of technology might not diminish true creativity. In fact, it might help it. I don't think I know or have described what causes that, except for saying that it comes from some kind of organic human to human interaction and self discovery of the human being as a result of this... Is this the driving force of true creativity, or does it in fact come from, or is triggered by, some interaction of replicable creativity...?

    I mean, in the statistical sense, the more people who are doing replicable creativity through the use of communicative technology, the more this might inspire original creativity...

    I think I think about using technology to communicate as limiting vocabulary too? Like a oppressive rather than liberating force? It would only be bad for creativity if some limitations are imposed on commutation, whether politically driven, or to purposefully constrain creativity. If the technology is purely facilitative, not constraining, then I see very little problem with it blocking creativity somehow.

    And so I have essentially countered my original argument...
  • counterpunch
    1.6k
    For example, much of the discoveries in humanity come from the Renaissance and scientific revolution where there was no downward existential force constraining human communication at a human to human level, thus allowing human beings to thrive emotionally and be in that state of being able to create and derive new ideas.JohnLocke

    That's incorrect.

    In 1634, Galileo was arrested for proving the earth orbits the sun; was put on trial - threatened with torture, death and excommunication, and forced to recant. Immediately, his contemporary, Descartes - withdrew a work on physics from publication, and instead - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy, which uses a skeptical methodology to arrive at a subjectivist conclusion, consistent with religious spirituality, and so, consistent with religious justifications of political power. See Divine Right of Kings.

    Subjectivism has been built upon by Western philosophy - over the past 400 years, to the exclusion of objectivism and science as an understanding of reality - even while science was used from the 1730's onwards, to drive the Industrial Revolution, the Church was still burning heretics alive through to 1792.

    Because science was deprived of any moral authority as truth, government and industry have used science, and applied technology in pursuit of their own purely ideological ends - and thus we have nuclear weapons, but have not developed the technology to supply the world with limitless clean energy, despite knowing about climate change, at least since 1965 - when a US President's Advisory Committee panel warned that the greenhouse effect is a matter of "real concern". (Lyndon B. Johnson.)

    Also, the idea that technological communication diminishes creativity is odd. I wonder what prompted you to take to your computer and tell us about it?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.