I decided to truly challenge myself with this writing assignment and find the most wrong-headed concept it this essay. It was tough competition: I could easily have gone with his personification of machines (that unconscious lumps of metal have “points-of-view” and “function as virtual members of society”), or the closely related confusion he has between people being lazy in their use of technology and the idea that an inanimate lump has somehow “mastered” them. I might have focused on the UTOPIA project, the closed-circuit of which seems the most perfect plan for destroying human advancement ever created. However, I have elected step back a bit and discuss the entire concept of “democratizing”—that is, politicizing—science and technology.

Mr. Winner’s argument in proposing the politicization of science and technology seems rational and straightforward: technology affects everyone, therefore, everyone should have a say in what technologies are created. It seems clear. It seems fair.

Of course, Mr. Winner’s arguments are based in the context of a rather stunning number of logical errors and fallacies. First, there is the aforementioned pathetic fallacy; Mr. Winner assigns human attributes to inanimate objects (“does a computer in the workplace function as a servant, slave, controller, guard, etc.?”) (“They can be seen as ‘forms of life’”). He also commits the fallacy of faulty causation: he believes that technologies change society (“What matters is that a whole new kind of society was created.”). He makes the error of believing that technological innovation can be controlled (“No innovation without representation.”), and the dependant error, the culmination and “purpose” of his essay, that such control would somehow be a means of preserving “human liberty and dignity.”

If a teacher used a computer to grade tests, Mr. Winner would not acknowledge the teachers’ use of technology to free himself of a repetitive task, or his greater responsibility to discuss the test with his students. Instead, Mr. Winner would whine that the computer now ran the classroom, with the teacher subservient. The truth is that technologies don’t change societies; societies change—they always have and always will. If new technologies are present, they will be incorporated into that change; but change is inevitable, regardless of technology. Technological innovation cannot be controlled—even in the most perfect vision of Mr. Winner’s anti-scientific fantasy, somebody somewhere will eventually have a new idea of how to do something. The idea that attempting to prevent people from coming up with new ideas will somehow preserve “human freedom and dignity” is ludicrous once it’s clearly examined; even if it were possible, by nay-saying one technology “democratically,” you are almost certainly passing up later insights which will lead to much better technologies.

There is a fairly obvious connection between all of these essays: not matter how they may couch their language to pretend otherwise, they are all ultimately anti-scientific. Saying that we “must create a new science” really means that science must be abandoned. A philosophically-inclined reader will find that this common anti-science is based in the school of post-modernism, in which “feeling” is given primacy to logic. It doesn’t matter that if Mr. Winner’s “three guiding maxims” were retroactively applied to human history, we would all be living at the mercy of the elements to ripe old age of maybe 40; it feels good for Mr. Winner to imagine that we can “take control” and force the world to conform to our fantasies. It doesn’t matter that sectional sofa cushions are popular because they’re easier to clean beneath; it feels good for Mr. Sclove to imagine that it’s some Western anti-Communist plot (much like eating utensils that only feed one mouth at a time—I shudder to imagine the alternative). It doesn’t matter that phrases like “male machines rather than female fabrics” are the utterest gibberish; it feels good for Ms. Wajcman to imagine that she has enlightened herself to some ages-old conspiracy to control women.

Will Mr. Winner’s essay have any practical influence on my use of technology? Absolutely not. Is there an important call to action to be found? Absolutely—in the entire selection of essays. Post-modern “thought” (and I use those two terms together in the loosest of arrangements) is a cancer which has metastasized throughout academia, the news media and the political sphere. The longer it is allowed to grow, the worse our condition will become. The only antidote is logic, which I will both introduce and encourage it at every opportunity.

Recently on Facebook, I was made aware of a group which will be hosting “Burn a Koran Day” on September 11, 2010. Many people on Facebook who happily refer to themselves as Libertarians (or Conservatives, which in America should be practically identical) were shocked and outraged that I refused to condemn this group. Angry statements were made ranging from calling me a Christian hatemonger, to a hater of homosexuals (?) to my personal favorite, “burning Korans will get American soldiers killed in Iraq!”

Leaving aside the incredible pettiness and selfishness of using the lives of people who have signed contracts to put themselves in harm’s way to protect your freedom as some sort of moral leverage, and the fact that I won’t be PARTICIPATING in the event, let us consider some points of libertarianism in relationship to the upcoming event.

1) If you do not recognize the sanctity of private property, you are not a libertarian. That is, I can go to the bookstore and buy a copy of Q’ran just to burn it. It is mine; I own it and may dispose of it how I please–including destruction and desecration.

2) If you believe that people must be prevented from taking any action which might offend someone, you are not a libertarian. You have no right not to be offended. In point of fact, being offended by something is your own choice. I could choose to be offended by eating ice cream; that doesn’t give me the authority to close down the companies that make it.

3) If you believe that people aren’t responsible for their own actions, you are not a libertarian. Men don’t rape women because of what the women were wearing. Muslims don’t bomb synagogues full of children on High Holy Day because some Americans burned Q’rans. Human beings are free-willed organisms, and we take those actions we choose to take.

4) If you get angry at people because they disagree with you, you are not a libertarian. You cannot both believe in personal liberty and not allow difference of opinion. It is absurd.

5) If you respect the ideology of a group that uses violence to coerce people into obeying them, you are not a libertarian. If you want to object to something, object to the destruction of the World Trade Center by Muslims and the subsequent attempt to build a mosque in the crater. Object to the beheading of Daniel Pearl and countless others by Muslims to terrify people into obedience. Don’t object to the people who are making it clear that America is still a free country.

Finally, just to highlight the depth of ignorance people have displayed on this topic, it is highly unlikely that the group in Florida will actually burn any Q’rans. You see, Islam does not recognize a translation of a Q’ran as anything but a book–it isn’t really the Q’ran. Translations can be had for $20.00 at the bookstore; real Q’rans will cost over a hundred dollars. Do the math.

Below is my first essay for PHIL401, Philosophy of Technology. It is a rebuttal to another essay, and I thought it turned out well enough to share:

According to Winston, the most important reasons for the philosophical investigation of science and technology are that a) science and technology are socially constructed; the biases of any given society will determine how much and in what areas scientific advancement will be made, as well as determining how that knowledge will be practically adapted into technology; b) that new technologies might be used in dangerous ways (such as the atomic bomb); and c) new technology carries a risk of unforeseen, dangerous impact on our lives(such as the destruction of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons).

I agree with Mr. Winston that the first point is important, although I’m not sure that it’s as important to “philosophically examine technology” as it is to keep epistemology up to date with scientific investigation. As for the second point, Mr. Winston himself shows how hollow it is: a toaster, as he says, can be used to “lightly burn bread… or as a hand-warmer or a murder weapon.” Technology is completely amoral. It is entirely up to the human being whether the toaster is used to burn bread (which might also be accomplished with an open flame), to warm hands (which could be done by simply rubbing them together), or to commit murder (which can be done any number of ways without the toaster, or any technology at all). As for the third point, every negative impact Mr. Watson lists is an unintended, indeed unforeseeable, consequence. The only way to prevent unforeseeable consequences of technological advancement is to prohibit all technological advancement, which is neither possible nor desirable. As much as some people like to complain, the fact is that the more technologically developed any given society is, the longer, more accomplished and more comfortable are the lives of the members of that society.

I am neither a “techno-optimist” nor a “techno-pessimist,” and I believe that these are false choices. I cannot be a “techno-pessimist,” because I can see that the constant advancement of technology has a generally positive impact: even if a job is lost to a bank teller, for instance, because of an ATM, that ATM now needs people to stock it with money, to service it mechanically and electronically, to program it, to provide security for it… etc. Similarly, while the air in New York City is generally unpleasant due to the constant exhaust of industry and automobiles, it is far less unpleasant than it was 100 years ago, when New York was full of smokestacks and the diseases and parasites carried in tons of horse manure. Nor can I be a “techno-optimist,” since the idea that technology can solve all of humanity’s problems is simply ridiculous. Even if we were able to craft perfect, undying bodies with perfect knowledge… what would we do? We would succumb to utter boredom.

Mr. Winston would say that his reason for “critically examining” technology is to keep people safe. This is, of course, nonsense; as I’ve pointed out, technology itself doesn’t harm people, it is the use to which people put it; further, any unforeseeable consequences of such use are, well, unforeseeable. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Winston believes that people must be kept under control, and in particular under the control of himself and people who think like him.

Below are two questions which came up in a recent Facebook conversation, and my responses. Let me know what you think:

“I don’t see the connection between hunting down international terrorist criminals and funding wars and keeping armies everywhere on the globe.”

The connection is this: we are not confronting “terrorist criminals,” we are confronting war criminals who use terrorist attacks. These are people who deliberately and indiscriminately cause massive civilian casualties; who use children and the mentally disabled as unwitting human delivery systems; who commit military actions not only using civilian populations as shields but without a uniform to distinguish them from the civilians.
All of these are war crimes, and war crimes are dealt with by the military. Personally, I would be just as happy if Obama whole-heartedly committed the American Armed Forces to this attack and just finished it, rather that sending half the troops he’s asked for in order to prolong the crisis for his own political gain. But, I knew better than to vote for him. As for keeping forces around the world–who else is doing anything useful?

“Has it decreased radicalism?”

“Radicalism” isn’t a problem. Firstly, because people should be free to believe whatever they want–we aren’t the thought police. It is ACTION which must be answered with action. Second, because what the liberal imbeciles in our media and political circles refer to as “radicalism”–presumably to support the farcical oxymoron of “political correctness”– is, in fact, the CORRECT interpretation of Islam. Mohammed really did direct his followers to murder and torture those who did not follow Islam, to take their lands and valuables (among which he included women), to marry girls as young as 9 (and mutilate their genitals)… It is the Muslims who respect the inherent human rights of freedom and dignity, who choose to live in America and embrace the values of the U. S. Constitution, who are “radical” Muslims.

Faced with an overwhelmingly deadly heart condition, a 9-year-old boy in Georgia has raised $12,000.00 towards his own medical expenses. Essentially, the boy wrote a short story and sold a limited-edition run of autographed copies on E-bay. So Barack Obama and the Democrat-led Congress have passed a gigantic, fascist law mandating that all Americans purchase health care plans, because the adult population of the United States just has no other way to cover their medical expenses, and the free market can’t possibly work.

Yet this third-grader used the free market to pay his own way. Amazing. I’m sure we’ll be hearing an apology from the administration any minute now–not only for the un-Constitutional legislation, but for their lack of faith in the American people.

I have received my program materials for the New Hermetics Program. It looks very promising. The founder, Jason Augustus Newcomb, will be personally proctoring me.