John G. Messerly's Blog, page 156

Is Life Meaningful If It Ends Shortly After We Die?

SAMUEL SCHEFFLER

In the recent book, Death and the Afterlife, Samuel Scheffler offer two imaginative thought experiments in an attempt to understand our attitudes toward death and meaning.

In the first, the doomsday scenario, we are asked to imagine that we will live out our normal lifespan, but that 30 days after our deaths an asteroid will destroy the earth and all life on it. Needless to say most of us would find this a depressing prospect, independent of the fact that we would not die prematurely. Scheffler argues that this shows that the lives of others after our own deaths, what he calls the “collective afterlife,” matter more to us than we ordinarily think, and that our individual survival matters less to us than we normally suppose.

In the second, the infertility scenario, we again live out our normal lives but must do so with the knowledge that the species is infertile. With the last human death, humanity dies will die. Scheffler argues that this knowledge would demoralize us and undermine our attempt to live valuable lives. So again we see that the collective afterlife is much more important to us than we usually realize.

Scheffler also contrasts the relative calm we feel about the fact that all those now living will one day be dead, compared to the horror we experience in either of the above scenarios. This suggests that the fact that we and those we love won’t exist in the future bothers us less than that some unknown people won’t exist in the future. As Scheffler puts it:

“the coming into existence of people we do not know and love matters more to us than our own survival and the survival of the people we do know and love. . . . This is a remarkable fact which should get more attention than it does in thinking about the nature and limits of our personal egoism.”

MARK JOHNSTON REPLIES

But is it true that we really care more about potential people in the future than our loved ones now? This idea has been recently challenged in a penetrating piece in the January 02, 2014  edition of the Boston Review by Mark Johnston entitled ”Is Life a Ponzi Scheme? Johnston asks us to imagine that our tribe contains half of humanity and is infertile. Would we really prefer the destruction of our tribe if we knew that the remaining half of humanity will repopulate the planet to its previous levels in a few generations and then all of them will die a few generations later? Johnston thinks this thought experiment belies Scheffler’s claim that we care more about unknown future persons than our present loved ones.

Johnston also argues that it is not just any future for humanity that matters to us but rather valuable ones. Thus a future in which gangs fight for cosmic space or we are food for aliens is not better than one in which we perished altogether; Johnston prefers we don’t survive at all rather than suffer such terrible fates. This leads him to consider whether our lives have meaning: a) if humanity has a future or; b) only if humanity has a valuable future. The problem with either of these is that if value depends on the future then value will eventually be undermined–since the universe will ultimately end.

To avoid such a depressing conclusion Johnston advises us to value our lives in the here and now, rather than holding them hostage to some future. And we should not be demoralized either by the thought of our own or humanity’s death: “The kind of value that properly calls forth joy is not something that waits to be validated by the collective life to come. As a consequence, we already live in a rich ecology of value that surrounds us here and now, no matter what happens in the future.”

MESSERLY

I challenged Johnston’s views   in my recent book: The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Perspectives. There I argue forcefully that what I call complete meaning is not possible without (individual/collective) immortality. That is not to say that mortal beings can’t live meaningful lives, just that they would be completely meaningful only if they possessed both infinite quantity and quantity–only if they didn’t end. In my view this is possible because future technologies may make death optional and grant us immortality if we so choose.

This argument for immortality provided by future technologies is buttressed by Scheffler’s insight that we care so much about the future of our descendants. We care about the future because if there is no future then life is (nearly) pointless. Johnston is right that futurity can’t provide meaning if there is no future, and in that case all we can do is value the present as he counsels. But if there is a future of infinite value and meaning–brought about by science and technology–then our role in bringing about that future gives our and our descendants lives, meaning. As for the eventual death of the universe, this too is uncertain given considerations of the multiverse, and the possibility of advanced intelligence determining the fate if the universe when they become sufficiently powerful.

Without the prospect of a good and lasting future for our descendants then, there is little or no meaning to our present lives. And that is what Scheffler’s thought experiments so beautifully and artfully illuminate.

Is It Moral to Invest in the Stock Market?

Suppose someone offered you the following proposition: Invest a dollar in the slave trade and you will make a million dollars in a week. Definitely a good monetary investment, but obviously a immoral one. At the other extreme if you could invest a dollar in WeHelpChildren Inc. and get a million dollars returned this is both a good monetary and moral investment.

Now suppose you let a million dollars sit in a credit union (much more moral than in a bank) and the money will stay even with inflation, or you could put the same money in an index fund and make on average 5% or $50,000. The latter is obviously the better financial move but the former could be the more moral move. And that’s because the credit union is a non-profit loaning the money to other members while the stock fund invests in for profit companies some of whom are no doubt exploiting people, despoiling the environment, etc.

In fact there is no doubt that someone, somewhere is being exploited by the corporations in which you are invested. On the other hand, some of that corporate investment is probably making the world better. No, I don’t trust GE or Monsanto either, but just because they are motivated by profit doesn’t mean light bulbs or even genetically modified food is bad. No matter what company I invest in, I’m just not clear what they are doing with my money. In other words, its unclear whether the investments in a stock portfolio are actually doing good or harm, or at the very least it is exceedingly difficult to find this out.

In the end, since one doesn’t really know what their monies are supporting, it may be foolish to forgo the added monetary gains, unless one knows for sure their investments are doing harm to others. And even if the added monetary gains are supporting an unjust worldwide economic system, one could always give away their gains when they receive them.  Given that the worldwide economy is so complex, I’m not sure we can feel confident no matter which way we proceed. All we can do is research the issue and try to use our monies–essentially our power in a capitalistic system–for the best.

Irrational Protests against Google

The activist group Counterforce had previously slashed Google employee tires and has now engaged in character assassinations and physical harassment of Google employees. http://www.salon.com/2014/01/22/the_t...

Here is their justification from the Counterforce manifesto:

After previous actions against the Google buses, many critics insisted that the individual Google employees are not to blame. Taking this deeply to heart, we chose to block Anthony Levandowski’s personal commute. We also respectfully disagree with this criticism: We don’t see one action as better than the other. All of Google’s employees should be prevented from getting to work. All surveillance infrastructure should be destroyed. No luxury condos should be built. No one should be displaced…

We will not be held hostage by Google’s threat to release massive amounts of carbon should the bus service be stopped. Our problem is with Google, its pervasive surveillance capabilities utilized by the NSA, the technologies it is developing, and the gentrification its employees are causing in every city they inhabit. But our problem does not stop with Google. All of you other tech companies, all of you other developers and everyone else building the new surveillance state — We’re coming for you next.

This is blatantly absurd. Their problems with Google are: 1)that Google and other tech companies are part of the surveillance apparatus; and 2)Google employees are well-paid. The first argument rests on at least  6 assumptions: 1) surveillance is always or mostly bad; 2) tech companies provide the primary technology for such surveillance; 3) Google is especially culpable when it comes to such surveillance; 4) a band of anarchists can achieve their goal and significantly disrupt surveillance technology; 5) such surveillance will not continue if tech companies can be disrupted;  and 6) the world would be better off without Google and other tech companies and the many technologies they generate.

One of these claims is debatable (1); two are problematic (2&3); two are almost certainly fales (4&5); and one is self-evidently ridiculous unless one is a committed Luddite (6).

Regarding the second argument it is hard to see why the anarchists oppose good paying jobs. Shouldn’t there be more good paying jobs? Does Counterforce understand that Google employees are the very best high-tech workers in the world? That they were the kind of students who studied and mastered advanced mathematics, engineering, and computer science? The ones at the very top of their classes in some of the hardest subjects in the university? They were not handed money like trust fund babies nor did they steal money like Wall Street bankers or TV evangelists. Counterforce should work for better wages for all workers in an economy where most of the money is going unjustly to the very rich, instead of attacking technology workers.

Furthermore, it is not a Google employee’s fault that they are well-paid. They are well-paid because the supply of persons who can reason and program at a world-class level is less than the demand for those workers. But unlike athletes, entertainers, talk show hosts, and hundreds of thousands of person who contribute almost nothing to society (or in some cases do great damages to it like Fox news anchors), high tech researchers enable your internet and phone to work, make progress on self-driving cars, provide the computing power necessary for modern medicine and, in the case of Google, propel anti-aging research. (And this is but a small list of the applications of computer technology.)

In short the jealously of Counterforce is misplaced. Unable to find the Koch brothers, wall street bankers, or the hidden capitalist robber barons  who are raping the economy, they instead attack knowledge workers in frustration. I understand their frustration at our grossly unjust economy, but they attack precisely the workers of companies whose technologies may one day free us from laborious toil.  The fact is that our world would not function without technology nor could most of the world’s population even be fed without it.

Counterforce’s Luddite manifesto is eerily reminiscent of the Unabomber’s. He too uselessly and immorally attacked, and in some cases killed and maimed, high-tech workers and researchers. Let’s hope Counterforce doesn’t go down a similar path.

Disclaimer – I do not work for Google or any high-tech company. I did however teach computer science students at the University of Texas at Austin.

 

Overworked

Recently a couple of persons close to me, a man and a women, confided how overworked and stressed they are. Both are full-time employees with six figure jobs, highly educated and intelligent (I’m talking top 1%), with excellent family support, and loving children and spouses. If anyone should be able to cope, they should.

I have no doubt this reflects a society gone mad. It reflects the lack of a social safety net in modern America, the transfer of wealth from working people–even six figure income people–to corporations and shareholders, a materialistic society obsessed with GDP, the residue of the Protestant work ethic, the devaluing of time spent doing anything but producing, the greed of many of the super rich, and who knows what else. But when the most talented persons in society are not flourishing, something is wrong with society. (And how to even imagine the stress of parents working at minimum wage jobs–essentially indentured servitude.)

The basic solution has to do with a new social and economic system. It is simply indecent that the 85 richest people control as much wealth as the poorest half of the world, more than 3,500,000,000 people! http://www.theguardian.com/business/2...

Imagine if aliens landed on the planet and observed this level of inequality. What would they conclude except that the have discovered one of the most unjust social and economic systems in the universe.

But how do we change the world? Unfortunately I don’t know, and I fear we must wait for human consciousness to expand beyond the bounds of conventional thought for this to occur. This has happened to a certain degree in some parts of the world. Scandinavia and much of Western Europe have much stronger social safety nets and more laid back lifestyles than say the USA. And no doubt there are Caribbean or Greek Isles that are more laid back, perhaps some communes too. Nevertheless changing the economic system of the world in a single lifetime is a tall order.

The other thing we can do is try to change ourselves. Meditation, exercise, adequate sleep, and a good diet may provide some help. But in the end these are just coping mechanisms designed to deal with an out-of-control society. I simply don’t know the answer except to say that one should try, if economically feasible, to change their environment either by moving to another society or changing their lifestyle within the country in which they live.

However as I write this a feeling of impotence overwhelms. With workers working longer hours for less pay and the wealth of society redistributed to the very wealthy, solutions are hard to find. Much suffering will continue, it is ubiquitous, and humanity hasn’t even begun to live until it creates a better world.

The pain of all this is overwhelming. To cope we must remember there are mountains and oceans to look at, love to be given and received and, hopefully, some inner peace to be found. Someday humans will grow up and realize that toys and trinkets and big houses and cars pale in comparison to the wealth of health and inner peace. In the meantime we should do all we can to find the real wealth of human life.

With my most fervent wishes for my readers future health and happiness.

 

The Passage of Time

SCIENCE AND TIME

There’s hardly a more perplexing topic than time. I had a graduate seminar called “Concepts of Time” almost 30 years ago and I still have no idea what time is (even though I know the difference between the A and B series) or whether time is even real. (A view shared by a few physicists.)  St. Augustine famously said: “What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.” Later, in Chapter XII of his Confessions, he responded to the question “What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?” with the answer, “He was preparing hell … for those who pry into mysteries.” He apparently meant this facetiously. To make matters worse modern physics uses mathematical models to combine space and time into a single continuum called spacetime.

PHILOSOPHY AND TIME

But I’m less concerned with these abstract questions, and lack the training necessary to say something intelligent about them anyway. Instead I’m struck by the phenomenology of the consciousness of time’s passing, a fancy philosophical way of talking about the conscious experience of the movement of time, and also the experience of aging in general. Consider how some popular music, for example, has captured the passage of time. (I urge all readers to view the music videos that accompany these songs.)

CONTEMPORARY MUSIC AND TIME

The American singer-songwriter Five for Fighting (Vladimir John Ondrasik III) captures this by focusing on certain ages and typical experiences of them in his song “100 years.” Here the focus is on the fleetingness of time:

I’m 15 for a moment

Caught in between 10 and 20

And I’m just dreaming

Counting the ways to where you are

I’m 22 for a moment

And she feels better than ever

And we’re on fire

Making our way back from Mars

I’m 33 for a moment

Still the man, but you see I’m a “they”

A kid on the way, babe.

A family on my mind

I’m 45 for a moment

The sea is high

And I’m heading into a crisis

Chasing the years of my life

Half time goes by

Suddenly you’re wise

Another blink of an eye

67 is gone

The sun is getting high

We’re moving on…

I’m 99 for a moment

And time for just another moment

And I’m just dreaming

Counting the ways to where you are

The American singer-songwriter Anna Nalick wrote these lines about the passage of time in her song “Breathe (2 AM).” Here the focus is on our inability to stop the flow of time:

But you can’t jump the track, we’re like cars on a cable,

And life’s like an hourglass, glued to the table

No one can find the rewind button now …

And of course there is that old staple “Sunrise, Sunset,” from the classic play “Fiddler on the Roof.” Here we have parents reflecting on how fast their children have grown and, at the same time, how fast they must have aged too. Here the attitude toward the passage of time is at once wistful and melancholy:

Is this the little girl I carried?

Is this the little boy at play?

I don’t remember growing older

When did they?

When did she get to be a beauty?

When did he grow to be so tall?

Wasn’t it yesterday

When they were small? …

Sunrise, sunset

Sunrise, sunset

Swiftly flow the days

Seedlings turn overnight to sunflowers

Blossoming even as we gaze

Sunrise, sunset

Sunrise, sunset

Swiftly fly the years

One season following another

Laden with happiness and tears

No doubt there are countless other songs that explore similar themes, but this sampling suggests there is something universal about this experience of time’s passage that evokes strong emotions. It is no wonder that religions have tapped into this by marking life’s salient moments like birth, marriage, and death.

LONGFELLOW OF THE PASSAGE OF TIME

The passage of time steals our youth, our vitality, and any permanence we hope for. On the other hand, we are not impotent against the forces forces of time, and we can help others to flourish in the battle with time. Much of world literature deals with such themes but consider just one poet for the moment. Longfellow touched on most of these themes regarding time in his in his 1838 poem “A Psalm of Life,”

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,

And our hearts, though stout and brave,

Still, like muffled drums, are beating

Funeral marches to the grave…

Lives of great men all remind us

We can make our lives sublime,

And, departing, leave behind us

Footprints on the sands of time;

Footprints, that perhaps another,

Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,

A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,

Seeing,shall take heart again…

As an old man Longfellow maintained that we can learn much as we pass through life, and that maturity allows for insights unachievable in youth. He said as much to the fiftieth anniversary class of 1825 at Bowdoin College. Exhorting his fellows to continue to work and dream even as they advanced in age he wrote:

For age is opportunity no less

Than youth itself, though in another dress,

And as the evening twilight fades away

The sky is filled with stars, invisible by day.

STILL DEATH IS BAD

Still as I have argued in my recent book on the meaning of life, the wisdom that may come with age makes death more, not less, tragic. The wisdom which took so much time and effort to achieve … essentially vanishes with our passing, since it is mostly ineffable and incapable of being transmitted to the young. They have to learn it on their own … as they age.

So for now, until we have halted our aging and eliminated death, the passage of time enslaves us. It is true that we can’t jump the tracks because we are like cars on a cable, and life is like an hourglass glued to a table.

And this is a reason to lament our fate … and battle to defeat it.

Arguing with Theists

Received this interesting email from one of my best students in response to Jerry Coyne’s article: “The ‘Best Arguments for God’s Existence’ Are Actually Terrible.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116251/best-arguments-gods-existence-dont-challenge-atheists

“ Dr. J.

Thanks for the rad article. The idea of god not existing is cohesive and succinct, whereas an existing god means different things to different people …To argue against these gods is exhausting. To many, god is ineffable and it doesn’t matter that it’s existence is unable to be falsified. It is THAT important to them; they’re ensconced in their belief.  I’ll engage believers if they are looking for (an intellectual) fight, but  it is draining. And as far as reading more theology and “good” arguments for the existence of god, Well, I don’t have any more time to entertain that mess. God knows I’ve spent enough time on that in catholic school. What do you think?” DG

I must be cautious commenting on a topic over which billions of words have been spilled. But I have taught philosophy of religion multiple times, and like about 85% of professional philosophers I am not a theist.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/what_do_most_philosophers_believe_.html

I agree with DG that non-belief is easy to specify while belief is open to multiple interpretations. Non-belief is understandable.  We understand what it is like NOT to believe in Apollo, Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Allah, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. And if you believe in Allah and not Yahweh you understand clearly what it means not to believe in Yahweh. That’s why there aren’t 40,000 kinds of atheists but there are 40,000 different kinds of Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

And DG is right. It is exhausting to argue against these beliefs because theistic beliefs are amorphous and changing. For example, if a god is defined as creator and science provides a better explanation of creation supported by mountains of evidence, then the idea may change to  god as designer. If science provides a better explanation of design then the notion of god may change to god as “fine tuner.” If the idea of a multiverse renders the idea of fine tuner irrelevant–because there are an infinite number of universes and the one in which we exist obviously must appeared fine tuned–then no doubt the belief in gods will evolve yet again.

This evolution is also played out in the social struggle over teaching evolution in America. (Virtually the only first world country where this is an issue.) First there was creationism, and after that was struck down by the courts it evolved into “creation science.” When this oxymoron was struck down by the courts “intelligent design” appeared. Now that teaching ID in science classes has been struck down by American courts (because its not science!) I wouldn’t be surprised to see the argument morph to “fine tuning.” And when that gets struck down in may evolve into “grounder of being.”

Refuting these amorphous ideas is certainly exhausting. As Antony Flew taught us a long time ago, if your belief is not in principle falsifiable it is essentially empty. (http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/CH-3-Documents/ch3-Flew%20Hare%20Mitchell.pdf

In fairness, Basil Mitchell replied that belief in a god is not so much an assertion about the world as it is an attitude of a partisan who trusts that “the stranger is on our side.” Of course this is not possible to falsify  such an attitude and someone may adopt it. It’s like adopting an attitude of optimism even though the situation may not call for it. And if one is really  determined to adopt an attitude, if one wants and needs to have such an attitude, then you probably aren’t going to convince such a person to do otherwise.

So you might as well save your precious life energy for other battles. Neither another’s beliefs nor attitudes are open to much change. If someone believes an angel ACTUALLY led Joseph Smith to uncover some gold plates or that when eating bread and drinking wine they are ACTUALLY eating the body and blood of a 2000 year old dead man or that such a man ACTUALLY rose from the dead… then they probably aren’t going to be open to reasoning.  And life is too short to explain to them why such beliefs are just silly, even though they are self-evidently delusional. Similarly with attitudes. It may be silly to be an optimist in a certain situation–and it may be life threatening–but your aren’t likely to change another’s attitudes so you might as well save your breath. 

On the other hand if someone believes with Tillich that gods ground being, then it is hard to show how that’s silly because its hard to know what that means.  The claim is just cryptic. And then again you have to decide whether you want to spend your life in the byzantine labyrinth of theology or in the light of reason and evidence and science.  I put my trust in the latter.

But if you are really interested in truth, as opposed to believing what’s comforting or adopting whatever attitude strikes your fancy, then it’s probably best to avoid the entire labyrinth. Theologians play their own game, with their own cryptic language, but I prefer to let them play alone. And I generally avoid arguing with obscurantists–life is too short.

 

 

Whales and the Profit Motive

I saw the movie “Blackfish” recently. It is about a killer whale who, while held in captivity, caused the death of a number of persons. To me the tragedy is that the profit motive overrides the safety and best interests of both whales and their trainers. The whales–who perform primarily for Sea World–are held in virtual confinement or in close quarters with whales unrelated to them. This for a species that is family oriented and adapted to roaming vast stretches of ocean. Needless to say the whales fare poorly in such conditions and are prone to aggressive behavior. The death of a particularly young and vivacious female trainer is especially tragic.

The basic problem with the profit motive, contrary to Smith’s “invisible hand,” is that individuals and corporations pursuing self-interest do not always benefit the rest of us. Sometimes the profit motive and the general welfare coincide, but often they conflict. From the destruction of the environment and ecosystem and the pollution of air and water, to the poisons in our food and consumer products, it is obvious that individuals pursuing profit often act in ways detrimental to the general welfare.

Humans have killed, tortured, and enslaved others for profit throughout history. So it is not surprising that whales would be ill-treated for money. Nor is it surprising if a few dead, idealistic, animal-loving trainers also pay with their lives for Sea World profits. And why should we be surprised? How many die from the poisons in our air, food, and water, all of which were despoiled for profit. How many die in wars of profit? How many are imprisoned for profit?

Reality could be so beautiful; but it is so ugly.

Why a Larger Multiverse Shouldn’t Make You Feel Small (or should it?)

In a column today describing his new book, Our Mathematical Universe, renowned physicist Max Tegmark says:

“I argue that it means that our universe isn’t just described by math, but that it is math in the sense that we’re all parts of a giant mathematical object, which in turn is part of a multiverse so huge that it makes the other multiverses debated in recent years seem puny in comparison.“

The good news is the promise this holds for human knowledge:

“If I’m right and this is true, then it’s good news for physics, because all properties of our universe can in principle be understood if we’re intelligent and creative enough. For example, this challenges the common assumption that we can never understand consciousness. Instead, it optimistically suggests that consciousness can one day be understood as a form of matter…”

The bad news is that reality would be vastly larger than we have ever imagined, potentially making us feel extraordinarily small in comparison. Clearly Tegmark has something in mind like Pascal’s lament:

“When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space which I fill, and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I am ignorant, and which know me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather than there; for there is no reason why here rather than there, why now rather than then.“1

But Tegmark rejects existential angst. Yes reality is inconceivably large but he finds this discovery “empowering … because we’ve repeatedly underestimated not only the size of our cosmos, but also the power of our human mind to understand it.” This is reminiscent of Bertrand Russell’s conclusion when discussing the value of philosophy: “through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.”

I am sympathetic to these types of views, and believe they point to something profound. The mind increasingly understands reality and is rendered great in the process; humans transcend themselves. But will our knowledge continue to increase? Will we even survive? For the moment, I still feel exceedingly small.

 

 The column can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/why-a-larger-multiverse-s_b_4546750.html

1. Blaise Pascal, Pensees

Ian Barbour on Technology

Ian Barbour, one of the most important figures in the contemporary science/religion debate died Dec. 24, 2013. Barbour earned advanced degrees in physics and taught religion for many years at Carlton College. I don’t know much of Barbour’s work but I am somewhat familiar with part of his Gifford lectures entitled: “Views of Technology. ” In honor of his recent death, here is an overview of this views with a brief critique.

Barbour says that technology is “the application of organized knowledge to practical tasks by ordered systems of people and machines.” In his view there are 3 basic views of technology.  

TECHNOLOGY AS LIBERATOR (the optimistic view)

1.  THE BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGY – including 1) higher standards of living (medicines, sanitation, drugs, nutrition, less manual labor, etc.); 2) opportunity for choice (mobility, greater options, birth control, etc.); 3) more leisure (education, arts, entertainment, sport, etc.); and improved communication (radio, tv, phone, fax, email, etc.). In addition, genetic engineering,  new sources of power, computers and biotechnology promise to provide food, health, information, & energy.

2.  OPTIMISTIC VIEWS OF TECHNOLOGY – Kranzberg, for example, argues that modern urban society offers more freedom in our choice of occupations, friends, activities, etc. We work less and with more fulfillment than ever before. We are now moving to a postindustrial society where power is based on knowledge instead of on property [or physical strength]. In such a society intellectual institutions dominate, there is a service economy, & decisions are made on rational-technical grounds.

Florman maintains that the past has been romanticized when in fact: “Living standards were actually very low, work was brutal, and roles were rigidly defined.” People moved to cities because life was better there and our use of tech is the result of our choices and a response to public demands. He also believes that tech problems are solved by tech and that, while there is risk, we must balance the costs with the benefits. We must trust the experts in decisions concerning tech instead of allowing a uniformed public debates. (reminiscent of Plato) We must forge ahead in the hope of creating a better life for all.

Some Christian theologians see tech as a product of God-given human reason that can be used to free us from our bondage to nature, to enrich human life, affirm love & compassion, and ameliorate suffering. The French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin advocated that we create neo-life and direct the course of cosmic evolution to restructure the universe. In short, tech evolution and spiritual evolution are joined with the one as a prerequisite for the other.

3.   A REPLY TO THE OPTIMISTS – 1) The costs of tech are too easily passed over. In particular the costs are often unintended and not apparent for a long period of time. 2) The negative effects of tech are symptoms of our alienation from nature. This alienation (non-connectedness, estrangement) is typical of tech lovers. 3) Tech has concentrated political & economic power in the hands of a few. 4) Large-scale techs are dangerous. 5) Tech fosters dependence on experts who are self-interested—when we rely on others to make our decisions it is usually bad for all. 6) We may question the view that science pushes tech which is pulled by society & the marketplace. This again allows a disproportionate influence on the marketplace by the wealthy and those who desire instant gratification, causing us to overlook long-term goals.

TECHNOLOGY AS THREAT (the pessimistic view) 

1.  THE HUMAN COSTS OF TECHNOLOGY – 1) Uniformity in a mass society – standardized products, mass media created uniform culture, lack of individuality, and loss of identity since conformity aids efficiency. 2) Narrow criterion of efficiency – efficiency is defined in terms of quantities like volume, speed and maximum output where the human costs are overlooked. 3) Impersonality & manipulation – Genuine interpersonal interaction is threatened “when people feel like cogs in a well-oiled machine,” that is like objects. 4) Uncontrollability – Tech takes on a life of its own, and in the process we lose control over tech & ourselves. 5) Alienation of the worker – Marx argued that tech brings about alienated labor—alienation from the process & products of our work & ultimately alienation from others & ourselves.

2.  RECENT CRITIQUES OF TECHNOLOGY – Ellul claims that tech is an uncontrollable force that makes us its slaves by forcing us to adapt to its demands. Tech comes to determine our institutions, media, and our lives. There is little we can do about it. Winner says decisions are made by what the tech system demands so tech controls our lives. Jonas worries about the scale & power of tech. given the potential for harm from tech, we should error on the side of caution when it comes to using tech. Borgmann doubts that tech promotes human fulfillment. To do this, we must use tech not to increase production and consumption but to foster a more meaningful and simpler life. Kipnis believes that tech superiority leads to a belief in moral superiority and all the attendant evils—intolerance, injustice, etc. In short, the power provided by tech corrupts. Some Christians assert that tech has a neg effect on human life by fostering pride, idolatry, and tech as a form of salvation. Moreover, tech is addictive and our desires for it become insatiable. Other theologians argue that tech undermines the religious life and the sense of the sacred. The technician treats life as a problem to be solved [rather than a “mystery to be lived” according to Marcel] and treats persons as its, that is, as objects.

3.  A REPLY TO THE PESSIMISTS – 1) all techs are not the same. In addition, tech is not impervious to the influence of politics, economics, & other social influences. It isn’t all dominating. 2) The historical evidence does not show that tech directs itself but that many factors go into which techs thrive. 3) Tech does serve humans & need not undermine human relationships.

TECHNOLOGY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POWER (the neutral view)

1.  TECHNOLOGY & POLITICAL POWER – Tech is neither good nor evil—knives can be used for good or ill. Instead tech serves the interest of institutions, although the public may have some input.

2.  THE REDIRECTION OF TECHNOLOGY – Some argue that political structures can redirect tech to do more good. Rather than profit & short-term interest dominating, the public good & long-term interest may dominate. Marxists claim that tech is a means of increasing inequality in a capitalistic system. Western Marxists insist that if tech were put to use in a truly egalitarian society, the results would be vastly different from the experience of the Soviets. Some Christian theologians see tech as neutral & believe that it can be used to promote economic equality—or do more to better the world than it currently does. Barbour believes that this 3rd view—technology as neutral—is more consistent with “the Biblical outlook” than the first 2 views. The first view would replace God with tech, while the second view would overlook the benefits of tech for human life. Citing Niebuhr, Barbour agrees that the first group is optimistic & would accommodate to society and its tech because it thinks tech good. These are the rationalists & progressivists. The second group is pessimistic & withdraws from society since it thinks tech is bad. These are the Luddites & anti-techs. The 3rd group—Barbour’s group—calls for a via media position between the 2 extremes. This can be accomplished by 1) a synthesis of Christianity & society; 2) a separation of the 2 realms; or 3) the transformation of society—redirection of tech—consistent with Christian values.

4.   THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGY – There are 3 views of how science, technology & society are related. There is: 1) Linear Development – Science leads to technology which has an impact on society. (common view of the optimists); 2) Technological Determinism – Determinism varies in its degrees—basically hard & soft determinism, but tech determines science and society. (common view of the pessimists); & Contextual Interaction – Science, society, & technology interact in a context and are mutually reciprocal in influence. (common view of the 3rd group).

BARBOUR’S CONCLUSIONS

Optimists focus primarily on the economic benefits of technology like standards of food and health; and while social justice and environmental sustainability are important, they are not as important as economic benefits. The pessimists focus on personal fulfillment that includes meaningful work, human relationships, and community life, all of which are more important than economic benefit. The contextualists focus on social justice issues like distribution of wealth, rather than simple economic growth. We contrast the 3 positions by considering: 1) the defense of the personal – which is greatest in the 2nd & 3rd positions; 2) the role of politics – the 1st position is free market, the 2nd argues that the system is overwhelming us, & the 3rd argues that the polity is a means of making sure tech is used wisely; 3) the redirection of tech – the 1st accepts the past and future directions of tech, the 2nd group rejects tech, and the 3rd strikes the middle ground where tech is accepted but only if it can be redirected toward human good; and 4) the scale of tech – the scale should be large enough to bring benefits but small enough to avoid costs.

In the end, Barbour calls for redirecting tech—which is currently to corporations, governments, and economic structures—to serve the common good.  As he puts it: “ the welfare of humanity requires a creative technology that is economically productive, ecologically sound, socially just, and personally fulfilling.”

BRIEF CRITICISMS

Barbour misrepresents the first position–technology as liberator–as characterized by techno optimism. As a transhumanist I see technology as a potential liberator–if hard-won knowledge doesn’t free us what will?–but this doesn’t imply techno optimism. There are many things that go wrong with technological applications and transhumanists say as much. Barbour is simply wrong on this point.

What also worries Barbour is that this techno optimism is focused on economic growth, is utilitarian, and is atheistic. As for economic growth, he simply wasn’t familiar with transhumanism. Transhumanists want to overcome all human limitations, and labor saving devices or material comforts are but a small subset of what they have in mind. They are much more interested in defeating death and aging, alleviating pain and suffering, experiencing unimaginable states of consciousness and the like.

I will admit proudly that utilitarianism or something like it underlies transhumanism, although I know of nowhere that this is stated explicitly. Clearly this is a philosophy based on the assumption of a hedonistic imperative–that unhappiness and pain are bad. As for atheism, again this is probably the default position of most transhumanists, as it is of most scientists and philosophers. (I have referenced this point many times in my writings.)

And while this charge of atheism forces a man of Barbour’s sensibilities to reject technology as liberator, it doesn’t force us to do the same.

 

 

 

Should We Develop Our Talents?

Immanuel Kant famously argued that you ought to develop your talents. In fact, he argued that we have an absolute duty to do so. But is he correct? Should you develop your talents?

I don’t think there is a “categorical imperative,” (something that commands independent of one’s desires) to develop your talents. If you enjoy developing a talent, then by all means do so; skills and achievements are human goods. Moreover,  you’ll probably be happy as a by-product of developing such talents.

But if you don’t enjoy developing a talent, or if developing it would be stressful, or if one isn’t interested in developing it, then there is no moral imperative to do so. Just because I could be a good soldier, doctor, or gymnast doesn’t mean I’m obligated to be one. No matter what the pursuit, if I don’t find satisfaction in it, its probably best not to pursue it.

But if you develop the skill and talents that you want to, that make you happy; you have a good chance to be successful, as Thoreau said long ago:

I learned this, at least, by my experiment;

that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams,

and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined,

he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.

But this is all to idealistic. In our society we are often forced to do things we don’t want to. In fact most people in modern capitalistic societies do work that they would prefer not to do. And even those with high paying, prestigious positions usually prefer sailing, traveling or golfing to their actual jobs. This is an indictment of our system. Modern society does not create the conditions under which most can flourish. So what do we do? If we have no choice but to engage in alienated labor, then we must chose between the labor or homelessness–again, an indictment of our capitalistic system. 

But if we are lucky to have a choice, Thoreau’s words ring true. We should then pursue our dreams and hope the rest of the world benefits from our choices. Oh, that there could be a better world!

Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not. ~ George Bernard Shaw