The scientific future of human society is technopoly, defined by communications theorist Neil Postman as "the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology." Postman explains: Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfaction in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs. Scenarios of "a new kind of social order" have for many decades been a staple of science fiction. Probably the most celebrated works of this type are Brave New World , 1984 , and, written more recently, This Perfect Day (which depicts the world of tomorrow governed by a giant computer). Each book foresees a highly automated society wherein everybody has a job, crime is abolished, social roles are completely stereotyped--and human life has no meaning. As a character in This Perfect Day muses, "Machines are at home in the universe; people are aliens." article here Does seeking authorization and satisfaction in technology constitute a type of idealism one would commonly associate with religion and does the popularization of such a type of idealism necessitate the deterioration of our social fabric?
Technology exists to suit humans, to make them comfortable in their lifes, to make them understand everything around them, to make them feel safe. Technology as a social fabric makes humans who we are, the seekers of idealism or that which we cannot attain. Idealism is unattainable and that is why we seek it...does something like this deteriorate our society? Not at all...it further makes us human and proves social ties within human population. It strengthens society, until..... ...well I will no talk of the future.
In the future, and even in the present, the social fabric will require technology to even exist. It's not so much that we deify technology, but technology will deify us. An example is Second Life and other virtual worlds. To compare it with religion falls short, it's more like LSD.
Technopolyism suggests however that technology is not longer seen as an assistive element in social development but as an assertive one - in other words it is no longer sufficient to view technology as a means to make our lifestyles more convenient. Rather technopolyosm demands that technology establishes the standard of authority and satisfaction.
I think that's true to a degree. Technology in the future will be like the medium in which we live. You can't help the fact that technology has the capability of changing the basic rules of the game, even to the point of changing what it means to be human. When we can share our thoughts through our brain implants, or continue our bodies through artificial means, or project our senses into outer space, technology won't be an accessory to life, but central to it. What we make of it is our choice. I have a feeling it won't be something we worship in awe, but a tool we use like an extension of ourselves.
If we cannot live without the existence of such "technology" why would we not be in awe of it? If technology becomes no longer an accessory to life but the central aspect of it, won't that mean that a greater part of our independence and free will be forfeited to such a deity?
what other choice is there but not to make technology our center of existence? We do not limit our free will to this deity, we are expanding our free will using it, technology has made it possible to exist were life before it could not. Is that not an expansion of a free will? perhaps it limits us in other aspects...such as perceiving nature...but the possibilities for freedom of existence it opens before us are limitless.
for a technopolyist, that is a difficult question to answer (I mean, gee, human civilization has been going on for thousands of years but now if we suddenly close down industry we will starve to death and face certain extinction ...) it may have increased certain freedoms, but it has certainly decreased others - for instance many places in the world face very real problems of getting water, food and air that is not polluted in some way by side effects of the pursuit of convenience - I guess its a question of where your values are situated
is that the social fabric I smell burning in the background? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In the long run we'll become technology, and technology will become us. The distinction will slowly evaporate. That is all.
wow - this is starting to ring of half-baked eastern mysticism already "I am technology, you are technology - we are all technology. The only difference is that I have realized it and you have not" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! humor aside, its not clear how the phenomena of "technology" would have the ability to exist without a conscious counterpart - in other words the very nature of technology, regardless of whether it is assistive or authoratative, seems to suggest that there is always a demarcation between "us" and "technology"
That's because the machines aren't smarter than us yet. When they are I'm guessing they'll reach a point where they'll be able to feign consciousness so convincingly that few will be able to tell the difference. And if it looks like a duck.. But that doesn't really answer your question. Can you imagine what would happen if every microprocessor in the world were to stop working right now? It's not a matter of putting the machine on a pedestal but of their lives and ours becoming so intertwined that they become impossible to seperate. And we haven't even begun planting the first primitive chips under our skins yet.
we would probably return to agrarian feudalism quite hastily you know there are parts of the world where people still know how to grow their own food and eat it - of course not too many of them live in tokyo or new york, but that's the way the cookie crumbles .....
A good point. Whether, in the future, untold billions will continue to live and die without ever seeing a computer remains to be seen. Perhaps technology isn't the omnipotent deity you imagine it to be, then. (On the other hand, one could very reasonably argue that it's the computers in New York and Tokyo that are controlling grain production for all but the most self-reliant of farmers.)
