Image via Wikipedia
I have two words for you, Will Brown: Oh, piffle.
I hate to resort to that kind of language, but really.
So I’m to understand that because a bunch of 19th- and 20th-century lunkheads capitalized the word “History” so as to justify implementing their egregious theories about centralizing state power, we are no longer permitted to observe trends over time.
Well, sue me. And I suggest that if you want to hit the really deep pockets you should name Ray Kurzweil and a number of others as co-defendants in the suit. (Carl Sagan’s estate would make a particularly good target.) Anyway, I don’t capitalize either “technology” or “history*,” and I don’t believe that technology possesses (or provides) any “magical abilities.” I hate pointing all this out, because clearly you want to argue with someone who holds these kinds of positions, and I generally try to do what I can to help out a friend in need. But I’m not going to try to fake it. That just wouldn’t be fair.
I ‘ve got to hand it to you on the following:
Now, I recognise the implied intent of the modifying quotation marks
Phil employs; I understand he is making an allegorical statement and
not a literal one. While I am quite willing to accept without comment
using such as a rhetorical device, to advance a narrative say, such
thinking simply isn’t explanatory though which is Phil’s stated purpose
for the passage quoted above.
Okay, first, am I correct in thinking that there’s some words or punctuation or something missing here? Sorry, but that second sentence just doesn’t scan for me (after the word “such.”) Here’s my reading of the paragraph:
Let me briefly acknowledge that Phil is speaking metaphorically and now move on to the rest of this piece in which I will argue with him as though he were speaking more or less literally.
Nice!
Anyway, the key to the whole piece is the statement that technology wants what we want. In outlining its desires I am giving voice to what I take to be humanity’s desires as expressed by what I will call a pronounced tendency (not History, not even a trend) on our part to use it to try to better our circumstances. I think people want to make their own lives better (along with the lives of others, sometimes) and that technology is one of the most effective ways we have of doing so.
Now you can disagree with my naively positive assessment of humanity if you wish, but don’t come back assuming that I think everything always works out (I do not) or that I think that people are magical (they aren’t.) However I do believe they have this very interesting, very pronounced tendency and that — for the most part — technology is put to work in support of that tendency.
Otherwise, I agree that technology is just stuff, that it’s our collection of tools, and that it is (in some ways) ephemeral. My house is wired with ethernet cables and ports to support a LAN. This was thought a fairly high-tech thing to do when it was built a few years ago. I never use them; I have wi-fi. On the other hand, my house also has walls, windows, doors, and a roof. Some technological developments persist, others fall quickly by the wayside.
I’ll close with this thought. Your efforts at trying to put technology in its place as not being all that important might be more persuasive if you weren’t making said arguments via blog posts and Facebook links.
*Although I must confess that I do, sometimes, capitalize “singularity,” mainly because I see it as a specific event or period, something like the Norman Conquest or the Renaissance. Clearly, if I capitalized “singularity” all the time there would be no denying that I am some very dangerous species of crypto-techno-fascist. But my somewhat randomized approach is probably indicative of a penchant for anarchy. Who would have guessed?
