[SolarCross]

If you are opposed to political and economic tyranny, why not be opposed to the more effective and all-encompassing slavery of modern technics? Our society has simply thrown off the rather inefficient totalitarianism of absolute governments, and replaced it with the perfected totalitarianism of technology. If you are against the old tyranny, but a friend to the new one, you are an enemy to human freedom. The technological system eliminates human freedom and personality, runs on its own law indepepedent of the historical process, and takes control over the earth and of mankind itself.

Technology isn't tyranny for the same reason that the gun is not violence, tyranny and violence exists in the human heart not the in tools in human hands. Technology is practically by definition an enabler of human aspiration and thus it can enable good things as well as bad depending on the aspirations of the human. If we are talking about freedom then this simple chain of cause and effect should be born in mind...
Freedom comes from power and power comes from knowledge and knowledge is technology. The best chance for freedom comes from embracing technology not from rejecting it. I think what you find oppressive about technology is only that you don't understand it, which is to say you are oppressed by your ignorance of technology not technology in itself. In my amateurish way I am techno-capable and thus I am half-way the master of technology not its servant. The solution for you should be remedy your ignorance through learning.

[Wolke]

The common assumption underlying the above arguments is that technology is passive and neutral, rather than autonomous and operating in accordance with its own law ["technology isn't tyranny for the same reason that the gun is not violence" (taxizen); "technology is in and of itself neutral" (anticlimactus); "Technology is a lever that amplifies human actions" (quetzalcoatl), etc]. This rather naive assumption has been refuted by Jacques Ellul, Mumford, Oswald Spengler, Heidegger, N. Wiener, Elgozy, and others. Technology is not neutral and passive; it is man who is neutral and passive within the technological system. The system requires the integration of each element as its object. Man is an object within the system. He is acted upon by the system. Nothing is autonomous but the system itself. Education is irrelevant; even the managerial elites and scientific priesthood are components of the technological system, not its masters.

[quetzalcoatl]

The common assumption underlying the above arguments is that technology is passive and neutral, rather than autonomous and operating in accordance with its own law ["technology isn't tyranny for the same reason that the gun is not violence" (taxizen); "technology is in and of itself neutral" (anticlimactus); "Technology is a lever that amplifies human actions" (quetzalcoatl), etc]. This rather naive assumption has been refuted by Jacques Ellul, Mumford, Oswald Spengler, Heidegger, N. Wiener, Elgozy, and others. Technology is not neutral and passive; it is man who is neutral and passive within the technological system. The system requires the integration of each element as its object. Man is an object within the system. He is acted upon by the system. Nothing is autonomous but the system itself. Education is irrelevant; even the managerial elites and scientific priesthood are components of the technological system, not its masters.

Every system has its imperatives, no doubt. No system is passive or neutral. But you have failed to make a convincing case (or any case at all, really) that technology is the overarching meta-system that drives society, rather than one of a number of factors that run concurrently and effect us to varying degrees. I would probably go a little further and challenge the notion that technology is even a system at all. "Technology" is descriptive in the sense that "biochemistry" is. A cell is a living adaptive system, while biochemistry is an abstract analytical apparatus and not properly part of any biological system...a critical category difference. Similarly, "technology" is an analytical framework to look at disparate tools that may interact strongly, weakly, or not at all. Technology is a concept not a system.

[mikema63]

scientific priesthood

Sounds awesome, sign me up.

I should note that many of the people who are agreeing with you aren't saying that technology should be opposed, they are pointing out potential merits to some arguments about some technologies.

Dropping technology is a good way for most of us to just up and die.

[Wolke]

Every system has its imperatives, no doubt. No system is passive or neutral. But you have failed to make a convincing case (or any case at all, really) that technology is the overarching meta-system that drives society, rather than one of a number of factors that run concurrently and effect us to varying degrees. I would probably go a little further and challenge the notion that technology is even a system at all. "Technology" is descriptive in the sense that "biochemistry" is. A cell is a living adaptive system, while biochemistry is an abstract analytical apparatus and not properly part of any biological system...a critical category difference. Similarly, "technology" is an analytical framework to look at disparate tools that may interact strongly, weakly, or not at all. Technology is a concept not a system.

The technological system is a concrete ensemble, not a constructed system intended merely for descriptive analysis. Technological objects are not a collection of scattered and unrelated fragments, but are part of a system in the sense that they are connected with and dependent upon the whole ensemble of technological factors. All technological factors are absorbed into the technological system. It is a system in the same way that an ecosystem is a system, or cancer is a system.

It is of course true that you only see separate technological objects -- your computer, your television, your radio, your car, etc. But these are all part of a coherent and interrelated whole. The view that humans simply use technological objects, and everything depends on how we decide to use them, is extremely naive. To hold this view you have to deny, as you do, that technology constitutes a system. And you have to deny that it is a system, because if it is a system, it is a threat to human sovereignty. But the reality is that it is a system. Technological objects are not unrelated fragments, but exist within a coherent system, and mankind is acted upon by the system, and is absorbed into the system.

Here is a fuller explanation of how technology is a system:

'The first aspect of the system is obviously its specificity. Technologies are not comparable to anything else. That which is not a technology has no point in common with that which is. And they possess, among themselves, similar characteristics; one can find traits common to all technologies. But we have to go further. All the parts are correlated, a correlation accentuated by the technicizing of information. The consequences are twofold. First of all, one cannot modify a technology without causing repercussions and modifications in a huge number of other objects or methods. Secondly, the combinations of technologies produce technological effects, engendering new objects or new methods. And these combinations take place necessarily, inevitably. But beyond that, the technological world, like any system, has a certain tendency to regulate itself, i.e., to constitute an order of development and functioning which makes technology engender both its own accelerators and its own brakes. ... The system thus seems highly independent of man (just as the natural environment used to be).

'This system exists basically not because a mechanical relationship has established itself between the different factors (by no means should we imagine the technological system like the different parts of a clockwork); but because we have a denser and denser ensemble of information relationships. We already know this on the level of our own interpretation. Information theory, which is all the rage nowadays, is an "interscientific technology . . . that allows us both to systematize scientific concepts and schematize diverse technologies.” Information theory is not a new science, nor a technology among technologies. It has developed because the technological system exists as a system by dint of the relationships of information. It is neither a chance thing nor a brilliant human discovery. It is a response to man's need to understand the new universe. Information theory is a mediating thought among the various technologies (but also among the various sciences, and between the sciences and the technologies). "It comes into play as a science of technologies and a technology of sciences."

'But if that is so, if information theory now appears to be a means of finally penetrating that system, then it is because information has done its share in structuring the system itself. The various technologies have unified into a system by dint of the information transmitted from one to another and utilized technologically in each sector. One can fittingly apply Norbert Wiener's statement (Cybernetics) to the technological system: "Just as the amount of information of a system measures its degree of organization, so too the entropy of a system measures its degree of disorganization."

'Once every technological object or method no longer had just the function of doing the exact task it was created for, but also acted as a transmitter of information; once every technological object or method started not only to function as such, but also to register the information transmitted by the whole technological environment (aside from what comes from the natural environment); and finally, once everyone took all that information into account--that was the point at which there was a system.

'It is not only the emergence of information theory which forces us to note this, but also the multiplication of devices transmitting information and of information technologies. The technological system has thus become a demander in these areas. The more technology develops, the further the labors of information increase as a condition of that development. Material output and the movements of physical objects have become less important than these nonmaterial activities. The information explosion was necessary for the creation of the system; it is not a mere accidental product of our capacity to produce information. The moment the system tends to organize itself, the demand for information becomes explicit; that is to say, a new informational sector appears, which is itself made up of technologies whose
sole specific feature is to produce, transmit, and gather information. At present, ninety percent of this information is produced by technologies of action and intervention, and its purpose is to allow other technological sectors to improve or adjust.

'Thus, what we have is an intertechnological relationship, the emergence of an ensemble of mediations; and that is what constitutes technology into a system. It is not just a matter of (though this is important) communicating, and reading about, scientific discoveries, innovations, (the international grid of information that will integrate the present-day electronic data banks, for instance). Far more significant is the permanent relation, on a concrete, often very humble level, between everything that is performed and everything that could be performed in the neighboring operational areas. Scientific information has always been highly attractive and unsettling, but it is not the center of our world; it is the permanent movement of thousands of bits of operational data from one technological sector to another. Now this movement has been decisively facilitated by the appearance of computers. And it is in this context that we must ask about the new technological ensemble, thanks to which the technological system is completing the process of constituting itself.

'The importance of the computer is obviously tied to the fact that the further we advance, the more significant a part of our world information becomes (this is already a platitude). We are no longer a society dominated by the imperative of production; now, we are ruled by the transmission, circulation, reception, and interpretation of multiple information. And that is exactly how the system is completing its constitution. The parts are not coordinated or even connected with one another; they are not materially linked. But each part is a receiver of information, and the system is held together by the network of endlessly renewed information. What makes it flexible and ungraspable at a given moment is that one can never draw up any sort of "inventory of the system," because that would mean coagulating the information, hence negating the system itself.'

(Ellul, The Technological System, pages 90-93)

Dropping technology is a good way for most of us to just up and die.

That only shows how enslaved you are by the technological system -- you would literally die without it.

[anticlimacus]

To me it sounds that Ellul is getting at two things:

1) Technology has become so profuse that we are dependent upon it in such a way that to turn one bit of it off, is to shut off the whole "system". Therefore in order to avoid this "shutoff"we perpetuate this growth of technology.

2) We are so enamored by technology that as we consume it, it consumes us. We crave the next technological invention and this craving and perpetual infatuation with technology become a mere fetish, a fetish that blinds us from the systemic nature of each technological "product". In this way, we even fail to see what is going on level 1.

I think, to a certain extent, it is true that we become dependent upon technology--but we also have to ask the question, is that always necessarily bad or even avoidable? It is, of course, if we adopt the assumption that technology has become an ever pervasive system that has dominated human existence to its very core so that we not only become passive to it, but slaves to receiving and circulating technological information. It's difficult, however, to really see what this means concretely--for instance, what does it mean to be slaves to technology when half of the world lives on next to nothing, with no access to technology which is required for even basic living?

But more than that, in relation to #2, it's difficult to understand why Ellul does not look at technology as just a commodity. In other words, just as we become enamored by any other product that gets circulated within capitalist production, technology also becomes a commodity that gets circulated to which we develop strange and awkward fetishes. That being said, why not also look at point #1 as an issue existing within the circulation of capital production? Technology, in this light, is not necessarily self-serving, but serving towards the expansion of capital and as capital expands and becomes even quicker and further reaching, so too does technology. Thus it's not technology that is the problem, but once again how technology is put to use and how it is oriented within social systems.

[Joe Liberty]

It is of course true that you only see separate technological objects -- your computer, your television, your radio, your car, etc. But these are all part of a coherent and interrelated whole.

No they certainly are not. There is no 'coherent whole' to be found among my car and my computer. Neither is even aware of the other, they cannot interact in any way, shape, or form. The only possible link they have is that there are rudimentary computer chips in my car's engine and I sit down to operate both of them. Beyond that, they have nothing in common and certainly are part of no "coherent whole".

I can turn each one of those things off and it won't harm me a bit. Last I checked, totalitarian regimes were slightly more persistent.

Yes I can see the lament that human beings in general may be too infatuated with their gadgets, and some even subsume their own lives to them. But it's still a choice that they're making, and others have just as easily chosen the alternative. You're using 'totalitarian' wildly incorrectly, I think.

Or we're talking about Skynet. In which case your line is, "Come with me if you want to live."

[jessupjonesjnr87]

My problem with technology is that it is the single biggest reason for the overpopulation of this planet, which is reaching breaking point.

[SolarCross]

My problem with technology is that it is the single biggest reason for the overpopulation of this planet, which is reaching breaking point.

If the world was actually overpopulated (by humans) then the human population would be declining but it is apparently growing still which indicates we haven't reached, let alone overreached, capacity.

[mikema63]

That only shows how enslaved you are by the technological system -- you would literally die without it.

Can't be enslaved when dead I guess.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

If the world was actually overpopulated (by humans) then the human population would be declining but it is apparently growing still which indicates we haven't reached, let alone overreached, capacity.

Ok so, my problem with technology is that it is the single biggest reason for the future overpopulation of this planet. Which is reaching breaking point!

[mikema63]

my problem with technology is that it is the single biggest reason for the future overpopulation of this planet.

Oh no people can survive birth and not starve!

The only way to keep human populations in control is either starvation, disease, and death or totalitarian controls.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Ya that's my point. Technology has reduced the number of deaths by starvation and disease drastically.
Although it has definitely contributed to death by totalitarian controls.

[mikema63]

I'ts human nature your objection is against not the technology that makes our lives a little less like a living hell.

[SolarCross]

Ok so, my problem with technology is that it is the single biggest reason for the future overpopulation of this planet. Which is reaching breaking point!

Well someone could have said the same thing 9000 years ago around the time agriculture was starting to be efficient enough to produce food surpluses and when the total world population was numbered in the millions rather than the billions and it would be no less true or silly. Probably in a thousand years time when the human population is numbered in the trillions and spread across the solar system, there will still be nitwits saying the solar system is overpopulated.

[Figlio di Moros]

Oh no people can survive birth and not starve!

I think his point is that the global population is beyond a point that can be supported by sustainable agriculture, meaning we've merely deferred starvation to a later, and larger, generation. Prio to petroleum-based fertilizers, the cpacity was 2 billion, iirc, and petroleum supplies are running out. If we couple overworking the land, then the holding capacity could greatly diminish even further as it did in the Fertile Cresent, the Khmer Empire, Easter Island, and as they believe it did to the Mayans.

In otherwords, we're overpopulated in the sense we won't be able to support as large of a population in the future, rather than contemporarily. I think it's worth adding, there's an asymmetry in food production; current agricultural exporters might be able to support themselves, but nations who are roughly sufficient and agricultural importers will find themselves short of food to varying degrees, which would likely cause them to overwork the land and diminish food supplies in the future, prolonging starvation and worsening the level of overpopulation. This is, of course, assuming that desertification doesn't feed into global warming and wreck current fertile lands in America, Australia, and Europe as well.

Well someone could have said the same thing 9000 years ago around the time agriculture was starting to be efficient enough to produce food surpluses and when the total world population was numbered in the millions rather than the billions and it would be no less true or silly. Probably in a thousand years time when the human population is numbered in the trillions and spread across the solar system, there will still be nitwits saying the solar system is overpopulated.

Taxizen, overpopulation has occured throughout human history. I just named four such events off the top of my head.

[mikema63]

Petroleum is used to get nitrogen. Nitrogen could be produced easily by engineering mycorhizzal fungus to fixate nitrogen (A single gene is required to produce the requisite enzyme).

This type of fungus is a symbiotic group that binds to plant roots and even forms associations directly with the cells. Many species of plants produce chemicals that attract them.

Petroleum use in agriculture is easily replaced, if we wanted too, unprofitable though it may be to switch.

[Figlio di Moros]

1) fungus is one solution, but do we see it being used or promoted? No, for "such a simple thing" we see nothing happening to do it.
2) Even w/ nitrogen fixation, farm equipment still runs off fuel.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I'ts human nature your objection is against not the technology that makes our lives a little less like a living hell.

What does starvation and disease have to do with human nature.
Just to make my stance clear i have a car a tv and all the crap that comes with it, and i wouldn't give them up. I have things to do that are more important than the future of mankind. But the undeniable fact is technology in some way or another will eventually be our undoing, that's if mother nature doesn't get us first. If 2000yrs ago mankind decided to consciously abandon all further technological developments we would get at least an extra 10000yrs out of this planet.

[mikema63]

Exponential growth of populations has to do with human nature

@FiG, It doesn't happen because the idea is an original mikema, as for farm equipment I could suggest moving forward with technology but we are against that now.