3 ms·
This. Anti-technologists by and large seem incapable of actually understanding technology by any reasonable definition (and being magnanimous, I would even per
by saraid216 14y ago
This.
Anti-technologists by and large seem incapable of actually understanding technology by any reasonable definition (and being magnanimous, I would even permit something as asinine as, "silicon-based Turing machines", if only to make the point that I don't have to agree with the definition for it to be reasonable). One of the reasons I like Nick Carr is that he argues against particular usages of technology more than technology itself.
My definition is "applied science", which in a broad stroke includes constructed shelters like log cabins and loincloths.
- defen 14y ago1) Enrolled in Harvard at 16, PhD in mathematics from U of M, assistant professor of mathematics at UC Berkeley at 25 - I think he was more than capable of understanding technology. 2) See my earlier comment - it's not about any specific technology! Your comment and parent comment indicate that you both haven't actually read the manifesto and are thus completely unqualified to discuss it or form opinions on it.
- saraid216 14y ago@defen, 1) Being capable of doing something doesn't mean you've done it. For instance, you're capable of reading comprehension, but you completely missed the fact that I wasn't attacking your damsel in distress. I am actually talking about all anti-tech commentators. 2) Of course it's not about any specific technology. That's precisely my criticism. If they were specific, then a serious discussion could be had. But because they can't quite figure out what they themselves are critical of in a precise fashion, they're unable to get anyone to listen. You're welcome to provide substance to this by pasting in Kaczinsky's definition of technology.