5 ms·

I find the Amish approach to technology a very interesting one. As I understand it, they're not in principle "against" modern technology, but they carefully eva

I find the Amish approach to technology a very interesting one. As I understand it, they're not in principle "against" modern technology, but they carefully evaluate the potential impact of every new technology on the community. The decision is a purposeful one, governed by the criterion of the common good of the community, which in my opinion is much healthy than our free-for-all. In this respect I find this encyclical quite lacking. It makes interesting points, and will give food for thought for people working in/with AI who might not otherwise have been exposed to these kinds of concepts. But one would expect, from a Catholic encyclical, an exposition of the principles of common good from a Catholic perspective. But in this document everything seems to be based in the concept of "human dignity", which, however useful or beautiful, has no roots in Catholic tradition: it's a purely secular idea. Nothing in the document couldn't have been written by a secular philosopher. It gives the uncomfortable impression of someone arriving late to the party, so to speak, trying hard to fit in. The answer to the question "is this technology good or not?" can ultimately only be answered in reference to ends: it's good insofar as it helps achieve the end which is sought. The common good of the community, which AI might either help or hinder, depends ultimately on what is the the end, or purpose, of man. And it is about _this_ that the Catholic church claims to have a definite answer, a true set of propositions regarding the origin and destiny of man, not achieved by human ingenuity but directly revealed by God. Whatever can be labelled Catholic will reference that supernatural claim to divine authority; yet none of that is present in this text. It remains an interesting exercise in thought on AI and other topics, but nothing here indicates that those reflections are Catholic.

Paracompact 4mo ago
> [The Amish] carefully evaluate the potential impact of every new technology on the community. The decision is a purposeful one, governed by the criterion of the common good of the community. Counterpoint: buttons. Without proclaiming expertise on the subject, I think this is an overly romantic view of the Amish, and most of their decisions (like any religious/religiously-adjacent demographic) are based on vibes and contemporary politics.
- jdelfuego 4mo ago
  Fair. Also far from an expert on the Amish. Your comment made me think in two things. One, as another [1] comment on this thread mentions, some technologies end up in some sort of 'background', used by everyone and not receiving any thought from anyone. Maybe that's some sort of practical proof of their "neutrality", in the sense of being something that satisfies a simple human need with demanding the sacrifice of part of our humanity? I don't know. The other: maybe their self-imposed isolation (physical, cultural, linguistic, etc ) affords them a greater independence with respect to contemporary politics and vibes? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48271324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48271324
  - Paracompact 4mo ago
    > some technologies end up in some sort of 'background', used by everyone and not receiving any thought from anyone. Maybe that's some sort of practical proof of their "neutrality", in the sense of being something that satisfies a simple human need with demanding the sacrifice of part of our humanity? Wouldn't be so sure. Electricity is abstractly omnipresent as a commodity and powers a lot of good things in the modern world, but if you have any reservations about the effects of the Information Age or the industry required to generate electricity, then electricity could be argued to be a sacrifice we simply don't realize we are making. > maybe their self-imposed isolation (physical, cultural, linguistic, etc ) affords them a greater independence with respect to contemporary politics and vibes? Maybe. As indicated my other comment, I can't judge their situation with any confidence. But it would be surprising to me if their isolation reduced rather than increased their proneness to echo chambers and dogmatism.
- hn_throwaway_99 4mo ago
  Could you explain by what you mean regarding "Counterpoint: buttons"? I wasn't previously aware of how buttons were viewed among the Amish, and all the results I found were varying degrees of "it's complicated", e.g.: https://www.amish365.com/buttons-amish/ https://www.amish365.com/buttons-amish/ And while I would agree that stating "The decision is a purposeful one, governed by the criterion of the common good of the community" may be over-romanticizing it, it does seem to me that the Amish are evaluating the use of buttons according to their core principles. I.e. the whole reason it's a bit complicated is that the Amish universally avoid flashy displays of vanity, and many uses of buttons, especially in the Victorian era, highlighted that, but that plain/simple/hidden buttons aren't that different from hook-and-eye fasteners, which are universally accepted.
hn_throwaway_99 4mo ago
> But in this document everything seems to be based in the concept of "human dignity", which, however useful or beautiful, has no roots in Catholic tradition: it's a purely secular idea. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but this just seems wrong to me, at least when taken in the context of the entire encyclical and the history of Catholicism. That "God created humanity in his own image" has always been a central tenant (if not the central tenant) of Christianity and Abrahamic religions generally. So it would seem like anything that makes us "less human", or denies us the full power of our "uniquely human gifts", would by definition be making us "less Christ-like", and my read of the rest of the encyclical seems like this is (generally) Leo's point. Again, I'm not a theologian, but Pope Leo obviously is, and "tying these ideas back to core Catholic principles" didn't strike me as a problem in this encyclical.
- kendallpark 4mo ago
  >> the concept of "human dignity", which, however useful or beautiful, has no roots in Catholic tradition: it's a purely secular idea. > I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but this just seems wrong to me Agreed, it's an ahistorical take. The Western secular concept of "human dignity" has roots in the Abrahamic religions. Not the other way around. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-1590-9_5 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-1590-9_...
  - jimmy76615 4mo ago
    I think it is very important to understand how non-secular this idea is, and how much of a cultural breakthrough it was. For the better or worse, there are many cultures that don't recognize an inherent value to human life.
- jdelfuego 4mo ago
  I think I get your point. The issue with which I disagree is that it remains a principle of Catholic thought that it avails nothing to man being created in the image of God without conversion and grace. A piece of moral guidance coming from the Pope which remains at a natural level (i.e. the danger of becoming "less human" which you identify as Leo's point) runs dangerously close to ignoring that the Catholic faith insists that the end of man is supernatural, not natural only. It'd be a good thing if the human dignity of some is preserved thanks to the discussions this encyclical might raise; but that's not enough, for "what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world and lose himself and cast away himself?” (Luke 9:25). My issue with this encyclical is that, interesting discussion on ethical and philosophical aspects of AI notwithstanding, I still would like to hear the Catholic voice on AI: a voice that actually believes that man is not for this world, and that only grace through faith in Christ can save him. And this is not it, I think.
zdw 4mo ago
A good link on this are what technology different sects allow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Amish_technology_comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Amish_technology_comp... Nearly everyone allows the washing machine, which having wrung out laundry by hand when ours broke gave me a whole new respect for folks who do without the tool.

Paracompact 4mo ago

> [The Amish] carefully evaluate the potential impact of every new technology on the community. The decision is a purposeful one, governed by the criterion of the common good of the community. Counterpoint: buttons. Without proclaiming expertise on the subject, I think this is an overly romantic view of the Amish, and most of their decisions (like any religious/religiously-adjacent demographic) are based on vibes and contemporary politics.

jdelfuego 4mo ago
Fair. Also far from an expert on the Amish. Your comment made me think in two things. One, as another [1] comment on this thread mentions, some technologies end up in some sort of 'background', used by everyone and not receiving any thought from anyone. Maybe that's some sort of practical proof of their "neutrality", in the sense of being something that satisfies a simple human need with demanding the sacrifice of part of our humanity? I don't know. The other: maybe their self-imposed isolation (physical, cultural, linguistic, etc ) affords them a greater independence with respect to contemporary politics and vibes? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48271324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48271324
- Paracompact 4mo ago
  > some technologies end up in some sort of 'background', used by everyone and not receiving any thought from anyone. Maybe that's some sort of practical proof of their "neutrality", in the sense of being something that satisfies a simple human need with demanding the sacrifice of part of our humanity? Wouldn't be so sure. Electricity is abstractly omnipresent as a commodity and powers a lot of good things in the modern world, but if you have any reservations about the effects of the Information Age or the industry required to generate electricity, then electricity could be argued to be a sacrifice we simply don't realize we are making. > maybe their self-imposed isolation (physical, cultural, linguistic, etc ) affords them a greater independence with respect to contemporary politics and vibes? Maybe. As indicated my other comment, I can't judge their situation with any confidence. But it would be surprising to me if their isolation reduced rather than increased their proneness to echo chambers and dogmatism.
hn_throwaway_99 4mo ago
Could you explain by what you mean regarding "Counterpoint: buttons"? I wasn't previously aware of how buttons were viewed among the Amish, and all the results I found were varying degrees of "it's complicated", e.g.: https://www.amish365.com/buttons-amish/ https://www.amish365.com/buttons-amish/ And while I would agree that stating "The decision is a purposeful one, governed by the criterion of the common good of the community" may be over-romanticizing it, it does seem to me that the Amish are evaluating the use of buttons according to their core principles. I.e. the whole reason it's a bit complicated is that the Amish universally avoid flashy displays of vanity, and many uses of buttons, especially in the Victorian era, highlighted that, but that plain/simple/hidden buttons aren't that different from hook-and-eye fasteners, which are universally accepted.

hn_throwaway_99 4mo ago

> But in this document everything seems to be based in the concept of "human dignity", which, however useful or beautiful, has no roots in Catholic tradition: it's a purely secular idea. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but this just seems wrong to me, at least when taken in the context of the entire encyclical and the history of Catholicism. That "God created humanity in his own image" has always been a central tenant (if not the central tenant) of Christianity and Abrahamic religions generally. So it would seem like anything that makes us "less human", or denies us the full power of our "uniquely human gifts", would by definition be making us "less Christ-like", and my read of the rest of the encyclical seems like this is (generally) Leo's point. Again, I'm not a theologian, but Pope Leo obviously is, and "tying these ideas back to core Catholic principles" didn't strike me as a problem in this encyclical.

kendallpark 4mo ago
>> the concept of "human dignity", which, however useful or beautiful, has no roots in Catholic tradition: it's a purely secular idea. > I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but this just seems wrong to me Agreed, it's an ahistorical take. The Western secular concept of "human dignity" has roots in the Abrahamic religions. Not the other way around. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-1590-9_5 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-1590-9_...
- jimmy76615 4mo ago
  I think it is very important to understand how non-secular this idea is, and how much of a cultural breakthrough it was. For the better or worse, there are many cultures that don't recognize an inherent value to human life.
jdelfuego 4mo ago
I think I get your point. The issue with which I disagree is that it remains a principle of Catholic thought that it avails nothing to man being created in the image of God without conversion and grace. A piece of moral guidance coming from the Pope which remains at a natural level (i.e. the danger of becoming "less human" which you identify as Leo's point) runs dangerously close to ignoring that the Catholic faith insists that the end of man is supernatural, not natural only. It'd be a good thing if the human dignity of some is preserved thanks to the discussions this encyclical might raise; but that's not enough, for "what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world and lose himself and cast away himself?” (Luke 9:25). My issue with this encyclical is that, interesting discussion on ethical and philosophical aspects of AI notwithstanding, I still would like to hear the Catholic voice on AI: a voice that actually believes that man is not for this world, and that only grace through faith in Christ can save him. And this is not it, I think.

zdw 4mo ago

A good link on this are what technology different sects allow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Amish_technology_comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Amish_technology_comp... Nearly everyone allows the washing machine, which having wrung out laundry by hand when ours broke gave me a whole new respect for folks who do without the tool.