4 ms·

> Computers are neutral technology. Don't make me tap the sign: Technology. Is. Not. Neutral. A shame so few technophiles have read Jacques Ellul[1]. Ellul's

> Computers are neutral technology. Don't make me tap the sign: Technology. Is. Not. Neutral. A shame so few technophiles have read Jacques Ellul[1]. Ellul's La Technique (and his later "Propaganda") should be mandatory reading for anyone thinking about systems. Be careful though, this thinker/philosopher has verbalized a problem that made Ted Kaczinsky conclude the only solution is for us as a species to retreat into the forests and vanish into the trees. Read Ellul at your own risk. About the rest I agree, but this is complaining about a system that works _exactly_ as intended. Read Ellul! [1] "La Technique" (The technological society) https://archive.org/details/technologicalsoc00ellu https://archive.org/details/technologicalsoc00ellu

Frost1x 4y ago
A 500+ page book is beyond most peoples tree time to explore from a comments faith alone so here's a summary I found (the quality of which is unknown) since I'm always interested to some degree in new perspectives (https://www.supersummary.com/the-technological-society/summary/ https://www.supersummary.com/the-technological-society/summa...): While Ellul separates technique from the individual machines that contribute to its reign, he maintains that machines represent an ideal state for the forces that govern technique. Humans, on the other hand, are not ideal at all. We lack the efficiency and predictability of machines. Therefore, Ellul says, technique is the social adaptation that exists in transforming the messy lives of humans so that they better fit into a world controlled by machinery. Further, in a somewhat terrifying turn of phrase, he adds that technique is "the consciousness of the mechanized world." So humans adapt to technology and as technology becomes more efficient we just become cogs of technology is the core principle here and I can see how this relationship could be thought to arise however I completely disagree with it. Technology does enable efficiency at a fundamental level but it's not that humans become slaves to the efficiency or technique, it's that some humans chose to force other humans into increasingly more efficient means. There is some feedback relation here in that in a global competitive environment as leaders around the world continue to compete in various forms they will inherently drive their populations into deeper efficiency I believe but the rise to all of this is because of the global competitive environment. It's largely social constructs and to some degree, finite resources that drive these behaviors and lead to efficiency focus. More than anything it's greed and hunger for power that drives this nonsense. Most humans recognize when their lives become dominated by some silly efficiency and don't care to follow suit. Their want autonomy, to own their life and own their choices. They're instead forced into "the technique" so to speak as a secondary effect. The underlying effect is what needs to be rutted out, technology isn't the fundamental issue here, it's a set of human behaviors and institutions that exist and enable them.
- DyslexicAtheist 4y ago
  so this is a review of a review + your conclusion that you disagree? a shame you didn't read it because it is less about machines but about systems (la technique) and systems thinking. There is a whole chapter on Propaganda which he expands on in a later book.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Frost1x 4y ago

A 500+ page book is beyond most peoples tree time to explore from a comments faith alone so here's a summary I found (the quality of which is unknown) since I'm always interested to some degree in new perspectives (https://www.supersummary.com/the-technological-society/summary/ https://www.supersummary.com/the-technological-society/summa...): While Ellul separates technique from the individual machines that contribute to its reign, he maintains that machines represent an ideal state for the forces that govern technique. Humans, on the other hand, are not ideal at all. We lack the efficiency and predictability of machines. Therefore, Ellul says, technique is the social adaptation that exists in transforming the messy lives of humans so that they better fit into a world controlled by machinery. Further, in a somewhat terrifying turn of phrase, he adds that technique is "the consciousness of the mechanized world." So humans adapt to technology and as technology becomes more efficient we just become cogs of technology is the core principle here and I can see how this relationship could be thought to arise however I completely disagree with it. Technology does enable efficiency at a fundamental level but it's not that humans become slaves to the efficiency or technique, it's that some humans chose to force other humans into increasingly more efficient means. There is some feedback relation here in that in a global competitive environment as leaders around the world continue to compete in various forms they will inherently drive their populations into deeper efficiency I believe but the rise to all of this is because of the global competitive environment. It's largely social constructs and to some degree, finite resources that drive these behaviors and lead to efficiency focus. More than anything it's greed and hunger for power that drives this nonsense. Most humans recognize when their lives become dominated by some silly efficiency and don't care to follow suit. Their want autonomy, to own their life and own their choices. They're instead forced into "the technique" so to speak as a secondary effect. The underlying effect is what needs to be rutted out, technology isn't the fundamental issue here, it's a set of human behaviors and institutions that exist and enable them.

DyslexicAtheist 4y ago
so this is a review of a review + your conclusion that you disagree? a shame you didn't read it because it is less about machines but about systems (la technique) and systems thinking. There is a whole chapter on Propaganda which he expands on in a later book.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]