Does technology "liberate" people?

The family is relaxing in the living room. Her mother and daughter fit comfortably on the couch, and her father is about to be hijacked. Her daughter happily looks at her pet dog, who is busy chewing on toys and guarding around the couch. On the floor next to the happy carpet of a happy family, where this happy family can relax happily, a machine that looks like a large hockey puck sits. The black machine makes an inorganic contrast to the atmosphere around the sun. I'm not sure how it works, but if you see how this machine can make this family so happy, the happiness of this family will surely disappear without it.

This is Roomba, but I don't want to promote the vacuum cleaner. The first thing I would like to mention is the promotion of technology trends. Modern technologies such as rumba are becoming more and more popular, so advertisers can suggest a lifestyle that will be realized with just a few hints. Roomba ads don't even need text, because the images alone convey everything you want everyone to know. The black guy in the corner of the room, which looks like a big hockey puck, works so we don't have to work, instead we can go for entertainment and enjoy the happiness of being human.

Here we call this the trend of "leisure as liberation" in technology design. The idea behind this trend is pretty simple. It seems that the role of technology is to free us from the chores and give us the leisure time we need to be human. This is not just an idea found only in Roomba, but also in the development of online shopping, voice assistants, prediction algorithms, or self-driving cars, autonomous robots, and autonomous controlled drones. Technology could clean, shop, check the weather, write, drive cars, take over labor, and even kill people on our behalf. unknown.

With so much more that technology can do, we are beginning to wonder which jobs are left to be done by humans. In other words, technology is advancing at a tremendous speed, and while humans continue to improve their ability to do their jobs on behalf of humans, humans are as advanced as technology and are so powerful that they do not have to rely heavily on technology. It is hard to say that you are wearing.

Again, as technology grows, technology is becoming more and more part of our daily lives, and it's hard to tell where technology is and where people work. It's probably a mistake to think that technology can progress independently of people, or that everything can be left to technology, and the distinction between people and technology cannot simply be explained by dualistic thinking.

In the modern way of thinking about technology-both design and philosophical-, people and technology are not considered separately, but "technology has always played a role in shaping people's lives." There is. Without technology, you can't be yourself. Don't worry that technology will turn people into the useless fat that was portrayed in the movie Wally. Rather, it is better to recognize that the tools discovered by prehistoric ancestors are connected to modern space exploration, as depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Technology has always been part of human development. With that in mind, we should try to understand technology more deeply and be more actively involved in its design before worrying about how it affects people. Because, whether you like it or not, technology has been and will continue to be part of human development.

This idea of ​​modern technology by no means supports technophilia (a strong commitment to new technologies). Let's take a step back from technophobia. Today's thinkers in this position-Peter Paul and Mary, Shannon Valor, Luciano Floridi, Bruno Latour, etc.-are just techno-realists (realistically calm technology). (The position to judge) will be claimed [each person's claim will be described later]. It doesn't help if you love or hate technology, but rather you should learn it yourself or engage with developers and actively participate in the design process.

However, being actively involved in such research and development inevitably requires time and energy to ponder technology. In other words, it seems like we have to develop technology that will free us for that. And we have time to spare, think about technology, develop technology that frees us, and thereby have time to spare ....

On the other hand, the question of past technophobic thinkers-Jacques Ellul, Martin Heidegger, Herbert Marcuse, Lewis Mumford, etc.-was not whether technology contributed to the development of humankind. .. The problem was that the view of modern technology "to do XX" could distort the development of humankind. Modern technology doesn't seem to be aimed at helping us reach our goals. Rather, it seems that they are aiming to set goals on behalf of humans, or to present humans with goals that require human help in order for technology to reach those goals.

So the owner of Roomba must keep his home tidy so that Roomba can work "in his favorite way". Just as smartphone owners have to tailor their activities to battery levels and traffic limits. Certainly we are buying a device that suits our needs. However, once you buy it, you may be so absorbed in the device that you are trying to create new needs so that the device can continue to work, and to keep your thoughts on the device for a long time.

Technology can not only set goals for people and shape their activities, but also influence our values ​​and make new decisions. We have to think that technology is superior to humans in terms of values ​​such as efficiency and objectivity. To that end, people tend to set aside their problems and focus solely on technical solutions. Moreover, because humans are inefficient and biased, there is a growing tendency to despise themselves as problematic children who should be replaced with more reliable technology.

Similarly, with the use of social media, we are constantly redefining privacy and the value of our friends. Since Facebook is also a means of communication, people want to think that it has both positive and negative aspects like other means of communication.

Modern thinkers would think of themselves as techno-realists, not technophilia, but likewise past thinkers did not consider themselves technophobia, technolia. You should have thought it was a list. Suspicion of what is considered an advantage of technology may be seen as a Luddite [an organization of skilled workers who opposed mechanization in Britain in the early 19th century], ungrateful, or paranoid conspiracy theorists. ..

For that reason, earlier thinkers probably hinted that the word technophobia itself was a precursor to the impact of modern technology on us. In other words, modern thinkers criticize past thinkers for not understanding the meaning of being "technical," whereas past thinkers call modern thinkers "human." You would blame yourself for not understanding what it means to be.

The contrast between these two views is not just a refutation of the esoteric theory. If you can be actively involved in the process of deciding how technology affects people's lives, but you consider a technology company to be an enemy of humanity, you're not working with us to develop technology. You run the risk of allowing technology companies to move forward.

On the other hand, if technology unknowingly distorts our goals, values, and judgments, the more we collaborate with technology companies, the more people are brainwashed by tech thinking, and as a result. You can't look critically at technology. So, in order to be convinced that technology does not provide leisure that kills humanity, but provides "leisure as liberation," we must seriously consider which view is correct. It doesn't become.

Outline of this book

This book aims to explore how human nihilism has become technological and how technology has become nihilistic. I would like to move away from the endless debate between techno-optimists (technology optimists) vs. techno-pessimists (technology pessimists) about whether technology advances will make people better or worse. Instead, I would like to dig deeper into how to define the concepts of "progress," "better," and "worse."

And I would like to invite readers to think about how technology will shape the world's consequences of such ideology, and how ideology should be defined to create such technology.

In Chapter 2 of this book, we start by explaining what nihilism is, what it means, and explain why nihilism should not be underestimated. Nihilism is not just the worries of underprivileged teenagers. Nihilism has become so prevalent in everyday life that existential philosophers such as Sartre only experience nihilism for those who think "life doesn't matter". I have come to think easily. As a result, it is no longer possible to recognize the possibility that even a way of life that thinks "living cherishing life" is nihilistic.

Recognizing the nihilism that prevails in our daily lives will help us to better understand Nietzsche's claim to the role that nihilism has played in European history, especially in the history of Christian morality. Nietzsche argued that nihilism and morality had a long-standing relationship. Nietzsche urges us to reassess the "values ​​of our values," saying that values ​​that value self-sacrifice and abstinence are nihilistic and debilitating.

Some may think that Nietzsche's claim does not apply to today's tech society. However, if you delve into transhumanism [see Chapter 2 for details], you will see how nihilistic the "posthuman" advocated by transhumanism is. And for that, you will find that understanding of nihilism is indispensable.

In Chapter 3, we will move from delving into the idea of ​​nihilism to delving into the idea of ​​technology. Heidegger's "Questions to Technology" has become a rite of passage for modern technology thinkers, and in order to make people believe that they are not technophobic determinists, "technology" is inevitable. We must criticize "Questions to".

So I will do that too. Apart from that, I don't want to attack Heidegger to relieve anxiety about my view. I want to show how Heidegger's technical ideas point in the same direction as Nietzsche's nihilism philosophy, yet completely different from Nietzsche's nihilism philosophy. Heidegger's concerns about modern technology leading an adaptive society can be read in the same way as the discussion of the relationship between nihilism and technology.

But unlike Nietzsche, Heidegger, like Marx, ends up blaming humans for not realizing their destiny because of the external influences of technology. To make up for this and to get in touch with modern technological philosophy, I would like to take a look at Don Ihde's opinion next to Heidegger. Because Idy's ideology seeks to remove from Heidegger's philosophically problematic and politically dangerous part of fatalism and to extract and discuss only useful insights into the use of tech.

Looking at his analysis, which Idy calls "human-technology relationship", there is a part that seems to be able to be fused with Nietzsche's nihilism philosophy, which is helpful when thinking about what I call "nihilism-technology relationship". ..

Following the solidification of the theoretical foundations of the subject of this book in Chapters 2 and 3, this theoretical framework is applied to the nihilism-technology relationship that could be described as "technology hypnosis" in Chapter 4. I want to dig deeper. We first discuss Nietzsche's analysis of "self-hypnosis" in the behavior of those who try to put themselves to sleep, such as meditation and drinking, and then show how this analysis applies to technology.

Nietzsche's words, "trying to get rid of (unbearable pain) from consciousness," are the hypnotic nature of technologies such as television and entertainment streaming, AR (Augmented Reality) and VR (Virtual Reality) devices. When I think about the charm of, I think there is something that resonates. After that, we show that such technology not only has the effect of relaxing people, but also the function of satisfying one's current situation and the life of looking at the screen, and raises the danger of technology hypnosis in this chapter. I want to finish.

Chapter 5 deals with the nihilism-technology relationship, which we call "data-driven activities" in this book. Are modern people using technology to keep themselves busy and disciplined? Actions that try to avoid the burden of making decisions on their own, or actions that follow orders or routines, are called "mechanical activities," and Nietzsche's analysis of these activities is useful. Given the use of Fitbit and Pokemon GO, and the reliance on ever-expanding algorithms, we can see how people rely on these technologies to avoid the decision-making burden and have them make decisions on their behalf.

For example, how much information does an algorithm collect about us? On the other hand, how much do we know about algorithms? If we rely on algorithms, we must blindly trust machine learning [the mechanism of automatic learning in AI]. The inequality in these data-driven activities gives me a dangerous impression.

Chapter 6 delves into the relationship between nihilism and technology in terms of the "entertainment economy." According to Nietzsche, people use "little joy" to supplement their powerlessness and enjoy helping others. This is because by giving something to another person, the person can drop the other person to a position lower than himself / herself and feel good from the top as the giver.

This analysis also applies to the technology of the sharing economy, why so many people donate online, lend their homes to others, and put strangers in their cars. Helps to understand. Technologies such as Kickstarter [American private for-profit company that provides crowdfunding funding for creative projects], Airbnb, and Uber. If you compare this with technologies such as Tinder [an app that provides a dating service that uses location information], you can see that there is a common dynamic that you can stand on by dropping others.

The entertainment economy is dangerous because these technologies are associated with sifting behavior. During these actions, people are intoxicated with their generosity and also enjoy cruel power relationships. To be more specific, determine if the other person is worth your generosity and sift.

Chapter 7 deals with the nihilism-technology relationship, which can be called "livestock networking." According to Nietzsche, people gather with people by "livestock instinct." There are a number of strengths there, and there is a chance to bury yourself in the flock and escape the burden of being yourself. Applying this insight to social media technologies, from CB radio to emoji to Facebook, you'll see why social networking has become so popular and popular.

These technologies have evolved from merely acting as an outlet for people's desires, and have changed the way people think about how they interact with others and what they mean. On social networking platforms, brands act like people, and people brand themselves. I think there is a danger of herd networking there. In those places we try to create our own identity, acquire followers and retain them.

In short, it's creating content to meet the needs of the platform. And we don't even know if the followers are simply interested in the content or themselves. I no longer know if I am myself or the content.

In Chapter 8, we will look at the world created by the relationship between nihilism and technology. This is called "click frenzy" in this book. Nietzsche is a frenzied activity with a runaway, liberation, and emotional outburst of trapped instinctive desires about the fifth "emotional frenzy" at the end of the relationship between humans and nihilism. It is distinguished from the first four [self-hypnosis, mechanical activity, small joy, and herd instinct] as "sin".

That's because they try to experience ecstasy that escapes the burden of accountability, and it's an escape that ends up being paid off later. Modern technology offers the opportunity to post comments anonymously, form flashmobs, and impose excessive ethics like the manners police. These are new ways to surrender to the urge to ecstasy.

In that case, the explosive tendency of a person may go beyond the "self-destruction" of feeling guilty alone, to the "destruction of others" that embarrasses others. Those who jump on the hashtag that raises the unscrupulous person to the spearball on social media may also be raised to the spearball by themselves, or the flame will lead to a reverse flame, which will lead to the act of exposure and its counterattack. Sometimes. For example, when trolls on the net and flash mobs merge, they can escalate and deploy cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is too poisonous. More on this later, but political campaigns are similar. The danger of click frenzy is felt there.

In the chapters so far, how technology can bring out and extend the nihilistic side of a person to take on the burden of consciousness, decision making, helplessness, personality, and accountability. You've seen how to do it.

In response to this, in the final chapter, we will explore how to deal with the nihilism-technology relationship. To find out how to deal with it, I would like to look at the "crazy human being" who declares "God is dead" in Nietzsche's "The Gay Science". By now, you should have understood the nihilistic shame of the world of technology we have created. Then, you can see the experience of a crazy human being who has lost his way, lost his way, and lost his certainty.

Once upon a time, God acted like a Kira star that would guide us. That is, when God's directions disappeared, we lost our way and felt that the world was out of the ordinary. Similarly, today Google is acting like a guide. We ask Google Search for answers, Google Maps for literal directions, and Google's DeepMind to eliminate their suffering. People even refer to Google when it comes to morals. Because "don't be evil" [Google's long-held slogan as a code of conduct for employees] is arguably easier to remember than the Ten Commandments of Moses.

But Google is not proof that we killed God and buried it in the earth. It is not proof that we have taken on the responsibilities that we previously entrusted to God. Instead, Google is proof that we're still stuck in nihilism addiction and are trying to give meaning to external sources.

So even if Google dies, it will just look for the next Google. Meaning to be a person, stop trying to escape from yourself, rather than blaming technology or trying to escape from it (as if you were to drive it away to drive away the effects of technology) We have to find a way to stop trying to escape from. One way to do this is to shift from passive nihilism to active nihilism, that is, from "destruction for destruction" to "destruction for creation."

Passive nihilism equates human progress with technological progress and leads to the pursuit of becoming a technology-dependent posthuman as the goal of human progress. But active nihilism takes a skeptical stance towards those goals. In doing so, it may be possible to rethink the value of abstinence that underlies this techno-human view of progress.

Passive nihilism may not turn into active nihilism if Google dies and just looks for a new one. But continuing to pursue the nihilism-technology relationship will create opportunities to inspire an active nihilism movement to gain new values, new goals, and new perspectives on what "progress" should mean. ..

Amazon SEshop Other

Nihilism and technology

Author: Noren Gartz Translated by: Atsuka Minamizawa Release date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 List price: 2,970 yen (main unit 2,700 yen + 10% tax)

About this book

This book does not seek a new interpretation of Nietzsche's ideas. The aim is to cultivate an excellent critical perspective on the relationship between humans and technology, inspired by Nietzsche's philosophy.