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.
