3 ms·
Technology enlarges the consequences of moral choices, but it does not carry an inherent morality. Whatever values you carry into the technology landscape are w
by Joeri 12y ago
Technology enlarges the consequences of moral choices, but it does not carry an inherent morality. Whatever values you carry into the technology landscape are what you get out of it. Digitisation is not the cause of the surveillance state, it's the enabler.
The problem is that we're trying to use 18th century values and moral systems to deal with 21st century technology. We need to develop a system of morality adequate for the job, because unless society tears itself apart technology is only going to expand, and the gap between our moral toolbox and the job we need it for is only going to grow.
- netcan 12y agoI don't think you're right. I think digitisation is not the cause of the surveillance state, at least by default. That is, regardless of who are the prime ministers, presidents and such of the era, the surveillance state was coming. It's not unstoppable, but I think it will need to become the no. 1 issue for a long time.
- Joeri 12y agoI agree with you. I think governments have always wanted to do what the NSA is doing. They've only just now become able to do it thanks to technology enabling them. Despite not being an american i also don't think the US government is worse than others, they're only better at it right now, but as technology accelerates eventually even the smallest fringe group or island state will have weapons of mass digital surveillance. My point is that the answer is not technological or legal in nature, it is moral. We need to convince the majority of people that digital mass surveillance is immoral, regardless of who does it or why, and the (il)legality of it will follow. The question is though: how many people even in the technology community really object to the act of bulk spying by itself, instead of just not liking it when it's done to them?
- danieldk 12y agoTechnology enlarges the consequences of moral choices, but it does not carry an inherent morality. Bruno Latour wrote a lot about this subject, and it is often insightful. There is a nice summary of [1] here: http://doorsausage.blogspot.de/2009/02/morality-of-speed-bump-latour.html http://doorsausage.blogspot.de/2009/02/morality-of-speed-bum... [1] http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/54-TECHNIQUES-GB.pdf http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/54-TECHNIQUES...
- 64598u3wieodsk 12y agoI appreciate you citing Latour. I agree his works have much to offer to science, technology and society. Slightly OT, but if you’re interested in a more critical take on some (recent) papers by Latour, I can recommend this review by Joel Wainwright. http://geography.osu.edu/faculty/jwainwright/publications/Wainwright%202005%20review%20of%20Latour.pdf http://geography.osu.edu/faculty/jwainwright/publications/Wa...