Glen -
I never understand your posts.
You likely are not alone in this.
But I can say that I think this one has
a fatally wrong assumption underneath: that "we" can be distinguished
from "technology". I'm pretty sure we've covered this ground as well.
I can sum it up with the aphorism:
"The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists."
My turn to be puzzled. Is this a non-sequitur?
I believe that tools are part of our extended phenotype. That implies
(I think) that a tool created by one person only translates to another
person if the other person is similar to the former ... similar
according to the measures defined by the tool's aspect.
A corollary is that if you use a dissimilar person's tool, you are
abusing that tool, or at least using it in a way the first person did
not intend it to be used.
I do agree that since Homo Habilis (or even earlier) that our phenotype
has been extended by the technology which we have developed and/or
mastered. We can only separate ourselves from our technology in that we
*can* choose what technology we pursue development of and what
technology we adopt once developed. We can choose it for ourselves, but
I contend, not for each other (the crux of gun control).
The implications are that any attempts to "repress" technology or
distinguish benign from destructive information is an attempt to repress
ourselves or classify the population into two types: good vs. evil
people (which, in a way, is its own type of repression).
I don't follow this entirely, but I do agree with the gist of it. While
I may sound like a Luddite of the highest order, I'm not. I'm merely
caught in what I perceive to be a paradox which I think effects us all
once we consider it.
And I'll end with as clear a statement as I can make: There is no
conflict between technology and any other human trait. All our traits
are a part of the same phenotype. They are multiple aspects of the same
thing.
This is precisely what I'm trying to illuminate:
1. To make and use tools is irreversibly our nature.
2. Our tools and toolmaking is on the verge of facilitating our
self-extinction.
3. We have choices in *how* we extend our phenotype but no methodology for
The last century has shown a quantitative and perhaps qualitative (with
the introduction of stored code/data computing machinery) acceleration
in our toolmaking. Our "tools" for addressing items 2 and 3 above are
fairly limited. They appear to be combinations of religious zealotry
and corruption fueled lobbying and lawmaking.
Ultimately, what technology we develop and use is a personal choice,
even if we want to dictate or legislate it for others, the nature of
technology is no longer easy to control and in many cases, the
*individual* is becoming capable of developing and executing amazing
technological feats without the aid (permission) of society at large.
Pandora's box is open.
This group would seem to be self-selected for the level of technological
astuteness and humanism to consider the implications of this.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
