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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.