The discussion began with Jeff calling for a clarification of the definition of "technology", one that is not limited to "high" technology. Clifford replied: technology consists of tools invented by humans to allow us to change something for the benefit of mankind; it is considered to be "high" technology only when it is new. Louisa warned against limiting the discussion to information technology, because even primitive tribes have a form of technology. She claimed it is a fallacy to think humanity can become better through technology. Steve then clarified that "techne" is Aristotle's word for "art" or "skill", and is used in the context of a distinction between doing and making: science (knowledge) corresponds to the power to do something, while technology (foreknowing) corresponds to the power to make things (i.e., "artifacts").
Daniel emphasized the importance of distinguishing between technological objects and technological thinking. Louisa argued that the focus of such discussions is too often on the former rather than the latter. Daniel agreed, adding that objects are the "means" to the "end" of thinking. He added that in Aristotle's day, the distinction between art and technology was not as great as it is today. Even working on computers would have counted as something an "artisan" would do back then. Steve agreed, noting that the term "artifact" can refer both to a product of art and to a product of technology. Catherine reminded us that a new race of artists is using technology to create art, thus blurring the distinction once again. And Roy added that "craft" is probably better than "art", as a translation of Aristotle's "techne".
Jeff warned that we should beware of the differences between ancient and modern meanings of words. He noted that the word "cyber" means "control" or "steer", and that the dictionary definition for "technology" is much richer than Aristotle's. Unfortunately, he could not recall the full definition at the time, but said it began with "an application of science to ...". Jeff asked When do we apply technology? and answered "now!" David inferred from this that there needs to be an intention to make something in order for the making to count as technology. Along these lines, Cedric asked: "Where did technology really start?" He answered that it began when the first person looked at the stars and wondered "Where did we come from?" From that point onwards, human beings started trying to control nature.
Guy then asked whether thinking is a form of doing or making. Steve explained that, according to Aristotle, philosophy is more closely related to science (doing) than to art (making); yet on the other hand, Aristotle regarded logic as an art. So to some extent the two must work together. Roy claimed that our modern ways of thinking and interacting have become far more sophisticated than Aristotle's, so depending on his ancient distinctions can be very misleading.
On a lighter note, Daniel asked whether we are products of technology, to which Steve replied that we must be, assuming our parents were making love, not just doing love on the day we were conceived. More seriously, both Guy and Daniel reiterated that the key issue here is ethical: do we control technology or does technology control us? Pia replied that the title "technology now" implies that technology is now controlling us, rather than us controlling it--as would be the case if Aristotle's definition of "techne" (significantly enough, from his book, Ethics) still held true. Ethics has lost its former power, she added, to guide our technology's impact over our future. Guy conjectured that this could be why we no longer recognize technology's origins. David wondered, however, whether this feeling of being overcome by technology's fast pace has ever occurred to past generations.
At this point Roy, in his capacity as guest moderator, announced that it was time for a break. He asked us to think about whether ancient references should be a guide to our reflections on these issues. He also encouraged those who had not yet expressed their views to feel free (though not obligated) to do so during the second half. After calling us to order again, Roy commented positively on the high level of conversational activity during the break, and suggested that we might want to devote more time to small group discussion in future meetings.
Alain restarted the discussion by rejecting the claim that technology is overwhelming us. He shared his experience at a recent technology Expo in Hong Kong, where everything was all too predictable. He claimed instead that technology is related to the "willingness to be or not to be". He added that his own work in the oil industry has convinced him that the producers of technology really are working hard to protect humanity and the whole environment, without letting technology run wild. "But can technology solve all the problems technology creates?", Roy asked. Clifford responded that it is up to human beings to decide if a given technological advance is good for us or not. So a conflict really does exist between technology and morality.
Guy drew attention to the fact that there may also be ethical problems in leaving a given technology undeveloped; we have to think "now" about the future effects such decisions will have on our future. Jeff pointed out that in the past, we could correct the negative effects of technology on human society, because there was plenty of time; but nowadays technology's adverse effects tend to happen too quickly to enable us to anticipate them. But Alain disagreed, suggesting a parallel between the way slavery was viewed 2000 years ago and the way guinea pigs are viewed today.
Louisa argued that the very nature of technology prevents us from foretelling its effects. Pia countered that the nature of technology now is that the unprecedented wealth of information threatens to drain us. "Is this really what we want?", she asked. Catherine observed that this is the political aspect of technology that so often remains hidden. She reminded us that "we do still have the choice!", but admitted that it is sometimes difficult to escape the adverse effects of technology, even if we try. Roy then asked: Does society have the political will to control society?
Steve pointed out that Louisa's statement about the nature of technology would seem to confirm Roy's previous claims regarding the untrustworthiness of references to ancient definitions, because Louisa's claim is exactly the opposite of Aristotle's. Aristotle claimed that "techne" is the skill of being able to foretell the future impact of what one makes today. So it is very important to determine whether Louisa is right, because if she is, then either we have lost our "techne" (our power to foreknow the impact of what we make), or else the nature of technology itself has changed.
David argued that the issue may not be so clear cut. Aristotle might have been referring only to the control of immediate consequences, not long term ones. Roy claimed that the real problem is that we do not know the consequences of (for example) GM technology, yet we have to decide "now" what to do about it! And Alain added that all such decisions come at a cost.
Going back to Roy's previous comment, Guy asked: what do governments control? Is it really possible for them to control technology? Clifford said it is possible, but is not really in their interest, since technology is not out of control. Daniel urged us not to regard this as a black and white issue: the ability to control technology depends on a person's education. Steve asked whether philosophy can assist us in this respect. He argued that it can be dangerous to trust governments too much; instead, philosophy can help us learn good habits that enable us, just as Aristotle (and Daniel!) suggested, to take responsibility for the control of technology ourselves.
On a rather different note, Louisa asked: Why does the world have to be "Green"? Pia replied that an ecologically unsound approach to technology could lead to our own self-destruction. David pointed out that the earth has survived many different approaches to technology already. Jeff reminded us that we do not always know the effect of today's technology. Applying technology therefore always involves risk assessment, and a good philosophy should assist us in making valid assessments. Pia added that the risks are far greater now than they ever were before, to which Roy responded by asking whether the universe might be better off if the human race died out.
Catherine closed the discussion by expressing confidence about humanity's unlimited imagination and ability to create solutions and to close the gap between technology with poorly foreseen effects and more timely solutions.
++++
The date for the next HKPC meeting was set for Tuesday, June 13th . The following topics were suggested:
The Importance of Philosophy to Human Life
The Ethics of the Oil Industry
The Business of Ethics
Is the Unexamined Life Worth Living?
The Pleasures of the Unexamined Life
After a lengthy discussion of these options and several possible variations, we settled on "The Critical Importance of Philosophy to Human Life", with Tom Caldwell giving the introduction.
This page was placed on this web site on 31 May 2000.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.