In my opinion, the endless pursuit of technical knowledge and efficiency is not beneficial.
I definitely think we are capable of transforming reality and learning more about it, I just don’t think this process of transformation is in itself beneficial.
I’m starting to get a feeling that our disagreement is more ideological than factual in nature.
I’m reading between the lines a lot here, but I’m getting the feeling that you think that although: a) you can look at the world from a reductionist, the-territory-is-out-there-to-study way, and b) you can make scientific progress that way, BUT c) scientific progress isn’t always desirable, THUS d) if you use your own world-view (the oak leaf in your head is the only reality), then e) we can focus more on developing aesthetic knowledge, which is desirable.
What would you say is an example of aesthetic knowledge? How would you describe a world that has too much tech knowledge compared to aesthetic knowledge? How would you describe a world that has a healthy balance of both?
Side note:
I’m a nursing student. A lot of what we learn about is, I think, what you would call ‘aesthetic knowledge’. I’m not supposed to care very much about why or why not a patient’s cancer responds to treatment. That’s up to the medical specialists who actually know something about cancer cells and how they grow and metabolize. I’m supposed to use caring and my therapeutic presence to provide culturally sensitive support, provide for my patient’s self-care needs, use therapeutic communication, etc. (You may detect a slight note of sarcasm. I don’t like classes that use words like ‘therapeutic communication’ or ‘culturally sensitive’ and then don’t give us any examples or teach us how.)
And yeah, a lot of medical doctors are kind of tactless and not very caring, even though they’re right about the diagnostic, and that’s not very nice for patients. But it’s not the technological advance that causes their callousness; it’s the fact that some human beings don’t know how to be nice to others. Society needs to work on that. But that doesn’t mean society shouldn’t work on a better cure for cancer because it will make doctors arrogant.
There are lots of consequentialist reasons to think twice about rapid progress. Like: we don’t always understand what we’re doing until we’ve done it and 50 years later there’s a huge hole in the ozone layer. Is that enough for me to unilaterally oppose progress? No. I was a breech baby–I’d have died at birth if I was born 100 years ago–and I kinda like being alive.
Society needs to work on that.… Is that enough for me to unilaterally oppose progress? No.
I feel like you read my words and somewhere in the process they get distorted to the extreme. Never do I say “unilaterally halt progress”. In fact, I am very careful to express that I am not advocating the halt of technical progress, but rather a moderation of it. It is important to continue to develop new technology, but it is also important to develop capacities for kindles, limitation, and compassion. Like you say, there are big consequences for unrelenting innovation.
I was brought to this community by a friend. This friend and I have discussions similar to this one. In one particular discussion, after he finally understood my position, his response was very similar to yours, “so what do we just stop trying to be better?” Why it is any talk of limitations on science or technology is misinterpreted as “unilateral opposition” or “an end to progress”. Why can’t moderation be applied to societal development in the same way it can be to eating, fucking, fighting, and all other paradigms of action?
It puzzles me. The impression it gives, is that there is a teleological faith (and I use this word, because it appears to me as religious) in the unconditional benefit of further domination and manipulation of our environment. I offer the following comparison:
In traditional society there can be no flaw in ritual; if a desired outcome is not reached, it is not because the ritual is flawed, but because it was preformed incorrectly.
In current society there can be no flaw in technology; if a desired outcome is not reached or produces unexpected results, it is not because technology is flawed, but because it must be improved on.
What do you think?
I was a breech baby–I’d have died at birth if I was born 100 years ago–and I kinda like being alive.
So the idea of progress something you are personally attached to. Not to sound cold, but the fact that you have benefited from a single aspect of technological development does not make the current rate of development any less dangerous for society as a whole. There are people who benefited from the housing bubble of the past decade, but that does not change the fact that an enormous amount of people did not. This is a bad analogy, because the benefits of technological development are much more widespread than the benefits of shady banking practices; still there is some relation, in that a large portion of tech development benefits the elite, not the masses. And I would argue that the existential risk is at this point greater than the benefits.
I’m starting to get a feeling that our disagreement is more ideological than factual in nature.
I’m reading between the lines a lot here, but I’m getting the feeling that you think that although: a) you can look at the world from a reductionist, the-territory-is-out-there-to-study way, and b) you can make scientific progress that way, BUT c) scientific progress isn’t always desirable, THUS d) if you use your own world-view (the oak leaf in your head is the only reality), then e) we can focus more on developing aesthetic knowledge, which is desirable.
What would you say is an example of aesthetic knowledge? How would you describe a world that has too much tech knowledge compared to aesthetic knowledge? How would you describe a world that has a healthy balance of both?
Side note:
I’m a nursing student. A lot of what we learn about is, I think, what you would call ‘aesthetic knowledge’. I’m not supposed to care very much about why or why not a patient’s cancer responds to treatment. That’s up to the medical specialists who actually know something about cancer cells and how they grow and metabolize. I’m supposed to use caring and my therapeutic presence to provide culturally sensitive support, provide for my patient’s self-care needs, use therapeutic communication, etc. (You may detect a slight note of sarcasm. I don’t like classes that use words like ‘therapeutic communication’ or ‘culturally sensitive’ and then don’t give us any examples or teach us how.)
And yeah, a lot of medical doctors are kind of tactless and not very caring, even though they’re right about the diagnostic, and that’s not very nice for patients. But it’s not the technological advance that causes their callousness; it’s the fact that some human beings don’t know how to be nice to others. Society needs to work on that. But that doesn’t mean society shouldn’t work on a better cure for cancer because it will make doctors arrogant.
There are lots of consequentialist reasons to think twice about rapid progress. Like: we don’t always understand what we’re doing until we’ve done it and 50 years later there’s a huge hole in the ozone layer. Is that enough for me to unilaterally oppose progress? No. I was a breech baby–I’d have died at birth if I was born 100 years ago–and I kinda like being alive.
I feel like you read my words and somewhere in the process they get distorted to the extreme. Never do I say “unilaterally halt progress”. In fact, I am very careful to express that I am not advocating the halt of technical progress, but rather a moderation of it. It is important to continue to develop new technology, but it is also important to develop capacities for kindles, limitation, and compassion. Like you say, there are big consequences for unrelenting innovation.
I was brought to this community by a friend. This friend and I have discussions similar to this one. In one particular discussion, after he finally understood my position, his response was very similar to yours, “so what do we just stop trying to be better?” Why it is any talk of limitations on science or technology is misinterpreted as “unilateral opposition” or “an end to progress”. Why can’t moderation be applied to societal development in the same way it can be to eating, fucking, fighting, and all other paradigms of action?
It puzzles me. The impression it gives, is that there is a teleological faith (and I use this word, because it appears to me as religious) in the unconditional benefit of further domination and manipulation of our environment. I offer the following comparison:
In traditional society there can be no flaw in ritual; if a desired outcome is not reached, it is not because the ritual is flawed, but because it was preformed incorrectly.
In current society there can be no flaw in technology; if a desired outcome is not reached or produces unexpected results, it is not because technology is flawed, but because it must be improved on.
What do you think?
So the idea of progress something you are personally attached to. Not to sound cold, but the fact that you have benefited from a single aspect of technological development does not make the current rate of development any less dangerous for society as a whole. There are people who benefited from the housing bubble of the past decade, but that does not change the fact that an enormous amount of people did not. This is a bad analogy, because the benefits of technological development are much more widespread than the benefits of shady banking practices; still there is some relation, in that a large portion of tech development benefits the elite, not the masses. And I would argue that the existential risk is at this point greater than the benefits.