Man and Machine


It seems patently obvious to me, and yet how often do we overreact when it comes to technology, either exalting it as our salvation or shunning it for its inhumanness? No matter how whiz-bang it gets, it's just a tool. We can use it to become vastly more productive and effective, and we can use it to do really bad things or to become soulless; but either way, it's on us to make those choices.

Sitting smack dab in the middle of Gen X, in between the Millennials and the Boomers, I observe (and admittedly this is a gross oversimplification/stereotype) that the young'uns put their trust in the latest technology and in sheer volumes of information, without having a fully matured grasp on how to marshal, synthesize, and make sense of it all. Whereas the old'uns scorn such technocentrism, equal parts reveling in the importance of the human touch and worrying that the world is whizzing past them.

If you visit this space, you know I sometimes exhibit both extremes, and sometimes get it right by understanding how to be in the middle; but at all times I take interest in the interplay between man and machine. So it will come as no surprise that I found fascinating these two recent articles about whether and how we can marshal technology for our enhancement: "A Mini-Revolt against Computers in Chess," from Marginal Revolution, and "Clive Thompson on the Cyborg Advantage," from Wired Magazine. Enjoy the links, and let me know what you think.

Comments

Nicholas said…
Interesting, seemingly-contradictory articles. Each seems to indicate that the men highlighted in the other are a passing fad.

The point at which technology use makes me really uncomfortable is the point at which humans use it to recreate themselves. A central facet of human rebellion to God is in the attempt to be the authors of our own identities. People have been doing that to some extent ever since Adam and Eve made their own clothing, but with new and still-emerging technology it will be possible to do so on a new level.

When people are using technology other than means naturally available to us such as diet and exercise in order to actually alter their bodies, brains, or genetic code, I am quite alarmed.
LH said…
Nicholas, thanks for your food for thought. Just to give one example, we are probably not far from huge breakthroughs in regeneration of body parts; how should we feel about research in that area?
Daniel Nairn said…
I'm pretty sure I've noticed how google has changed my memory. If there's an interesting fact I want to remember, I'll store a small enough piece of it to be able to do a google search and refresh my memory about whole thing when necessary. It skips that tedious phase of moving more than I need to into long-term memory. This is all subconscious.

I'm fully aware of the implications of ceding a part of my brain to a corporation. I hope they were serious about that "don't be evil" thing?
LH said…
Daniel, good example. My younger friends run circles around me in this regard, in terms of knowing what stuff is out there to help you filter through all the info that's out there and get yourself only what you're interested in. (I.e. Google Reader, RSS feeds.) And yet, as noted in my post, these are just tools; it's on us to figure out what we want to look at, and to set up our filters accordingly. Thanks for sharing.
Daniel Nairn said…
I appreciate this post a lot. Getting wrapped up in technology for its own sake is a constant temptation for me, and I need reminders to get me reprioritize.
Nicholas said…
Lee, I think my original distinction holds here: regeneration of body parts is not recreation of the human being. In this case it is a clear restoration of that which was lost, or that which should have been there to begin with.

However, it's not too hard to imagine ways similar technology could eventually be used to give people control of aspects of their bodies which have heretofore been inborn. Gender could be one example. That would, I think, be a bad thing.

Popular Posts