Why technology needs humans
•
0 likes•73 views
Technology needs humans in three key ways: 1) Technology needs to be invented by humans, who design technological objects and determine their purpose and functioning. 2) Technology needs humans to use it and apply it to study the world and perform tasks. Humans are responsible for how technology is used. 3) The development of technology is a choice made by humans, who decide what is designed and developed based on technical, epistemic, and ethical considerations. Humans shape the future relationship between technology and society.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Why technology needs humans
Similar to Why technology needs humans (20)
More from University of Amsterdam and University College London
More from University of Amsterdam and University College London (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Why technology needs humans
- 1. Why technology needs humans Federica Russo Philosophy & ILLC | University of Amsterdam russofederica.wordpress.com |@federicarusso
- 2. The pervasiveness of technology 2
- 3. 3
- 4. Technology does not need us 4
- 5. Technological development is a necessity 5
- 6. Instead, technology needs us … 6
- 7. … because technology needs us to be invented First, with Simondon and Wiener, we explore the role of the inventor, the designer technology needs us to be used Further, we analyse the role of humans in the techno-scientific process technological development is our choice Last, we emphasise our role in decided which processes to initiate or not 7
- 8. Technology has an individuality 8
- 9. Concretization and individuation Technical objects are designed and assembled They begin a process of concretization See how the parts ‘hang on’ together, how the object acquires form and shapes, how it starts functioning From concretization to individuation Every technical objects goes through process of ontogenesis, it develops over time and in space, interacting with the environment It becomes a technical individual Living beings undergo a similar process too, but they are not invented 9
- 10. Technology needs humans to be invented 10
- 11. A subtle, yet fundamental difference Simondon teaches us to think of technical objects Not just for their purpose or use They are more than instruments, tools Just like living beings, technical objects develop towards their own form of individuality Yet, unlike living beings, technological objects are invented We – humans – invent and design technical objects We choose materials, assemblages, design the functioning, foresee the use We – humans – are the initiators of a process We have control, and also responsibility 11
- 12. Inventing objects, responsibly Since cybernetics, technological development is getting faster and broader Technological progress proceeds at high speeds The range of what machines can do gets bigger, and fast Technology is more than an object with a purpose, says Simondon But we – humans – set this purpose, says Wiener We invent machines and systems, and we do it for a reason Reasons, purposes, objectives are epistemic, and moral Wiener: cybernetics as moral philosophy It has to be developed for doing good to humans, not to harm them 12
- 13. Technology needs humans to be used 13
- 14. We use technical objects To do things, to make stuff We hammer a nail, knead the dough, accelerate particles, fix a broken bone, … To study (parts of) the world We accelerate particles, analyse bio-samples, reconstruct the internal structure of the body, … We hold responsibility for the reasons to use objects and for the modes of using them We – humans – decide why and how to use a technology (rather than another) 14
- 15. Technological development is a human choice 15
- 16. Utopian and dystopian views Both are expressions of technological determinism Technology will progress, we can’t stop this progress For better, or for worse The blind faith and the blind despair Both concentrate on the wrong question: ❎ Where is technology going? And what consequences will this have on us? We need to change the question: ✅ Where do we want technology to go? What should it do for us? 16
- 17. We design, we choose We are inventors and designers, and we choose: Technical specifications Epistemic purposes Conditions and constraints Ethico-political values We need to rethink the process of technological design as including: Technical and epistemic specifications What and how something is designed Intended use, misuse to be avoided Why something is designed, when it should (not) used 17
- 18. Epistemology and ethics join forces With epistemology we make the design process epistemically good With ethics, we make the design process ethically good We internalize these processes No post-hoc evaluations No watchdogs We recover a unity of science, technology, philosophy, and ethics! 18
- 19. Why does it matter? 19
- 20. Binary thinking is always around the corner It is easy to fall back into utopian/dystopian views of technology But they are wrong and do not help with imagining the future Beyond binary thinking, we need to think about relations Simondon in French Epistemology Veerbeek, in Postphenomenology Floridi, in Philosophy of Information These accounts focus on relations, or how The technology changes the environment The environment changes in response to the technology We have to set up new relations with technology and with the environment 20
- 21. Infosphere and inforgs Technology and humans, the boundaries are blurred Human and artificial Online and offline Physis and techne Useful concepts from the philosophy of information: Infosphere: informational environment. The whole space of possible information, including Nature. Inforgs: informational organisms. We, intelligent humans; intelligent engineered artefacts Not science fiction, but the techno-science currently in the making Even if boundaries are increasingly blurred, we are still the drivers of this process 21
- 22. Who cares? 22
- 23. We care, we should care Design of technology comes with responsibility Epistemic: initiating and carrying out process of technological design Moral: setting the purposes and boundaries of the process As techno—scientists, we play a big role in shaping the future, and for this reason we are ipso facto moral agents 23
- 24. Themoral agent is an agentthat looks after the infosphere and brings about positive improvements in it, so as to leave the infosphere in a better state than it was before the intervention. Luciano Floridi, The Ethics of Information 24
- 25. Why technology needs humans Federica Russo Philosophy & ILLC | University of Amsterdam russofederica.wordpress.com |@federicarusso
Editor's Notes
- Thanks to Luca. Honoured. Philosophers are strange animals … ! And ethicists often perceived as gadflies. Here, really masters are you, doing the real scientific and technological work. My role: sharing reflections about the relations between humans and technology, and that I hope will resonate with your daily, practical experience. And in developing ideas about ethical boundaries, I hope you find the approach workable and productive
- Start with platitude: technology is everywhere
- Every day life. We think of computers and smartphones as changing our lives. But technology is present in our lives every day, and it has changed our lives, even when the simplest forms of tech have been invented and used Likewise, instruments in science are pervasive. We think of big instruments, e.g. LHD, mass spectometers, big optical telescopes … as making the whole difference in science. But instruments have been used since much earlier, some we still use today … and each of these, in their own way, changed the way we do science. But here talk about techno-scientific contexts specifically, although these ideas can be easily extended and applied to everyday usage of technology We therefore tend to think that we – humans – need technology, and that technology will develop in its own way, whether we like it or not. These will be 2 provocative ideas I put forward, as motivation for the discussion. But I will try to persuade you that it is technology that needs us – humans – in the first place.
- Open presentation with two provocative ideas, to be further examined and nuance in the rest of the lecture. 1. Technology does not need us. I ‘tweak’ this idea from the thinking of Simondon. Simondon was a French epistemologist. A philosopher of technics. He developed the idea that technical objects, very much like living beings, come into being following a process of ‘ontogenesis’. They develop and become what they are, pretty much autonomously and independently. They have an individuality. In this process, technology does not quite need us. >> connection with second provocative idea. But we will nuance and contextualize this provocation.
- Second provocative idea: Technology develops, it HAS to develop, we cannot stop this development. This may sound good news to those who have fait tech will solve all problems. For instance tech will solve medical problems, just as you are trying to do in this exciting network. We will nuance this idea, and in fact argue for the following. Technological development is not a necessity. It is a CHOICE.
- technology needs humans to be invented Following Simondon and Wiener, we explore the role of the inventor, the designer. Not a platitude, hope to show that technology needs human in a very special way Simondon and the role of the inventor, a designer Wiener and the idea that cybernetics has to be developed / design to make good things technology needs humans to be used Even in cases close to full automation, humans are the initiators of the process Here example of how in the project they use tech to study the reaction of the materials And example of putting the stuff in the body technological development is a human choice We choose technology. So humans are the ones deciding which technology to develop, for what purpose, and under what conditions
- We now try to nuance the bold claim made earlier, that technology does not need us. Simondon, the philosopher of technics who tried to explain the sense in which technical objects are individuals
- Here make the point: stressing difference between human and machines NOT to reinforce distinction between natural and artificial … here in this project it is much blurred! But to emphasise the responsibility we have in intiating any process to develop technical objects
- Wiener developed these ideas for cybernetics, but they are applicable to most technological objects and environments. MgSafe project is no exception. And while it is obvious that you study biodegradable material to make good to patients, the question needs to be asked explicitly, and repeatly: is this a good thing we want to develop? Why? How? At what cost? (think e.g. of animal experiments)
- Here example of how in the project they use tech to study the reaction of the materials >> imaging technologies And example of putting the stuff in the body >> study the reaction of biodegradable implants Do two things simultaneously: putting stuff in the body is possible thanks to technology. And we need to study this technology and its relation with the environment further. Moreover, this is one sense in which Simondon thought of the process of individuation >> these biodegradable implants are designed to have a special kind of interaction with their environment. Whether they ‘comply or not’, is part of their process of concretization and individuation
- Plenty of examples of technological determinism. E.g. digital technologies and future of jobs. Stress again, emphasis on humans not to reinforce natural/artificial, but to put the responsibility to humans.
- Being very visionary here. Imagining a different way to handle the whole process of technological design. Currently ethics committess and ethics clearance is a (weak) watchdog. Imagining a different future, in which different personas – scientists, technologist, philosopher, ethicists – are involved in the design and implementation process.