technology criticism

“Where is the wisdom,
We have lost in knowledge.
Where is the knowledge,
We have lost in information?”
– T. S. Eliot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism_(Marxism)
http://www.goodreads.com/…/sh…/927436.Archeology_of_Violence “I’m beginning to have some hopes that maybe the youth will pull out of this cyber daze that they’re in and actually begin to resist again.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuD5ak_kjX4&list=PLE4520ECA0E515D2B

“This attitude of hopelessly focusing on hope, this really cowardly attitude is what gradually came to irritate me”
– Anders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Anders
How many gods that fail will it take before you concede that the Promethean hope was false from the start?

Progress: Dogma of the Age
Why assume that technology is neutral (Jaspers only makes the assertion)? For someone who’s only heard the slogan, what’s the argument for the neutrality of technology? Maybe there is no argument, only the spectre of faith, only the obduracy of complicity.

http://ifg.org/techno-utopia/full-audio-of-teach-in/

http://ifg.org/techno-utopia/full-audio-of-teach-in/

#panopticonUSA – “a prison in the mind”
– preemption is self-fulfilling circularity #CartBeforeTheHorse
privacy for the powerful, transparency for the poor #doubleStandards
http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-1032_3-5787483.html

“as our work gets automated away, we are likely to get stuck with far too many unredeemed alienation coupons!”
David F. Noble’s Progress Without People is astute historically and socio-economically. See also America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. I’m sure there must be someone working in STS who is critical of technology, although precedence in the literature is just not strong in this respect (the dearth of sociologically minded technology critics is is attributable to this contingency of scholarship rather than anything else). Technology critics are critiqued for not attending to the socio-historical dimension, but it could be said conversely that socialists have not attended to the negatives of technology because they assumed its neutrality. One takes the market for granted, the other abhors phenomenology and the German ideology. This article could be a straw man setup, since socialists have traditionally assumed the neutrality of technology (this can be traced back to Jaspers free agency definition ~ a tool can be used equally for either good or ill) – when repeated often enough, it is habituated into a given http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/taming-tech-criticism

“This emergent ideology of technological progress served capitalist development well in the name of material prosperity and diverted attention away from the exploitation entailed. At the same time it shaped all subsequent critiques of capitalism. Even socialists, sworn enemies of capitalist aggrandizement and the profit system, were thereafter compelled to accommodate this new cultural contrivance, to adopt faith in technological deliverance that had become hegemonic. (12) “It was not mere coincidence that industrialization and the emergence of political economy occurred at the same time.” ‘as science spoke, the multitude knelt in love and obedience’ “‘Scientific’ socialists were quick to disparage and abuse all those who refused to accept technological necessity and acclaim the onward rush of industrial progress, dismissing them as romantic reactionaries or utopian dreamers. Those who continued to uphold the ideas of direct action at the point of production and who opposed the authoritarianism of scientific socialists—those who comprised the left socialists and anarcho-syndicalist tradition—were dismissed as infantile and irresponsible. The Marxists’ ridicule of all who opposed capitalist sponsored technological development thus simply seconded the hegemonic social taboo and further marginalized those who tried to insist upon viewing such development in the present tense. . . . And this became their legacy, and our inheritance: you can’t stand in the way of progress, nor should you—even if it kills you.” (Noble 19-20) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dsrggURj0I

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/braverman-gramsci-marx-technology/

(50:50) “if you introduce a technology to a culture, you introduce the culture’s values to that technology”

11115738_947146052002377_77550979946983568_o

slave brains must become transparent
To sell the tech to you, they say it’s for your own good, but scientific breakthroughs are always weaponized eventually. Because they need the funding, the smart must sell the atrocity to the naive. They never think that it might be one of them someday who will suffer the deleterious effects of their genius stupidity. That’s because they think they’ll never be on the receiving end; the bargain is, they say to themselves, that ‘I give the war- and money- lords my smarts and in return I’ll be well looked after as a brain pet deep inside the exclusionary spheres where I don’t have to mix with the common slaves,’ the ones who are first to be on the receiving end of the techno-exploitation.

“It seems that there is something about us, our intelligence, which entails that we’re capable of acting in ways that are rational within a narrow framework but are irrational in terms of other long-term goals” – http://chomsky.info/talks/20100930.htm – intelligence is a lethal mutation – –  Fermi paradox solution Z, in the past and present tense — the persons who thought/think they were right and had the most resources to act on their false beliefs (civilization elites) actually had/have it all wrong and we all have/had to die for their bigotry and illusory success – the ones who could make things better never win and the ones that win only hasten the planet toward collective suicide – tragedy is a law of physics – success is postponed failure, failures would have continued to succeed but are not allowed to – the missing were/are the only hope, those extinct and marginal cultures – only if everyone who died from injustice had survived and their persecutors had took their place would a sustained descent have been possible – evolution is a cruelty of a bright burst and sudden evaporation – the cleverest $pecie ends up murdering or pushing out all the potential for a verdant and equitable society there was and it realizes only too late that war, the depersonalization of hierarchical social complexity, and the cannibalism of greed were processes of suicide by proxy – progress is just too ‘effective’ and social justice is so un’practical’ –

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/aliens-extraterrestrials-active-seti/

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/a-thousand-kinds-of-life-culture-nature-and-anthropolgy

The Social Conquest of #SPACE – that’s why nothing is out there, because the cupidity- and war- lords of the worlds eventually destruct the basis for sustaining life with the help of their morally-idiot technically-savant #scientist #BrainPets – if any ET comrades had survived, wouldn’t they have lent a friendly appendage by now, considering how close we are to the precipice? http://www.nytimes.com/…/the-social-conquest-of-earth… #FermiParadox

the only problem with this line of reasoning is that the vast expanse is empty

life, whether you like it or not, happens to be precious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism#.22Cosmic_indifference.22

‪#‎fermiparadox‬

http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/r-brian-ferguson http://philoctetes.org/past_programs/on_aggression_the_politics_and_psychobiology_of_war

#TheUnpeople – #ethnocide is a prelude to #biocide

http://www.thenation.com/article/198513/killing-commons?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

1941351_868484629885969_333222518134532994_o

WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY
‪#‎technoPlutocracy‬ ‪#‎consolidateNeoFeudalism‬
then: Gatling guns
tomorrow: with liberty and an AI disposition matrix for all

#ThatWasThenThisIsNow the masses won’t stand a chance – death is optional for the few rich, expedited for the many poor http://edge.org/conversation/yuval_noah_harari-daniel_kahneman-death-is-optional

#doubleDown #DivineRightOfKings http://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming#t-502578

Who Owns the Future? Jaron Lanier​

“Plutocracy would suffocate creativity definitively.”

“If they come to see that their families must die before those of a weirdly insular upper class, there will be no restraint” (331)

Computer Power and Human Reason, Weizenbaum
“Yes, the computer did arrive ‘just in time.’ But in time for what? to save—and save very nearly intact, indeed, to entrench and stabilize—social and political structures that otherwise might have been either radically renovated or allowed to totter under the demands that were sure to be made on them. The computer, then, was used to conserve America’s social and political institutions. It buttress them and immunized them, at least temporarily, against enormous pressures for change.” ‪#‎tech‬

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/05/nsa-speech-recognition-snowden-searchable-text/

1:26:00 “[minimax] business schools like the university of Chicago, still teach . . . the worst thing you can do is ostracize a person … we are designed to express empathic distress”

1:29:00 “machines will never pass the Turing test… Empathy has the smell of death and the celebration of life — feel their attempt to flourish . . . every moment is precarious — as if I were [you] myself — there is no empathy in heaven and utopia because there is no suffering and likewise with the machines ~ existentialism of the human condition & finitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS1NzYBIBaU#t=494

https://www.vice.com/read/john-zerzan-wants-us-to-give-up-all-of-our-technology?utm_source=vicefbus

at what times is rationality an evil? sometimes rationality deforms the good, it does not always line up with the moral dimension

(3:38) – calculus of interest – “damage discounts down . . . the children’s future is discounted” vs. Chief Seattle’s seventh generation principle  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVXF5-EvdjM

(12:55) “the mechanical philosophy” “there are things not intelligible in mechanical terms” “science simply limited its goals” what humans can understand: determinism and randomness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY8ig9n9EFY&list=WLVRADSQzlrCQw1puw59bZaA&index=254

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f02gcRrdK2I

(8:00) pure nonsense – you can put these truisms in monosyllables

(11:18) “theory” – they talk incomprehensibly, we’ll talk incomprehensibly

(54:17 ) G. ‘no human nature, just history’ – ‘if you deny human nature you’re in favor of change [stealth pessimist – Leninist, managerial class], if you say there is a human nature you’re a reactionary’ [overt pessimist – ], but why not an optimistic assertion of human nature [genuine optimist]?

(1:01:37) “you can convince yourself if you’re sufficiently irrational [because denying nature, language faculty] that we can introduce changes. Incidentally, these views are extremely popular among a segment of the left, the Leninist segment, they may deny it. These views are useful to people who want to be managers. If there is no [innate] human nature, then if I control people, there’s no moral barrier to it/ if there’s no human nature anyway then I can determine what they can be, and I’m benevolent, there’s no human nature for other people but there is for me [hypocrisy] therefore I can form these amoebas become however I wish – a very convenient doctrine for the managerial class” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f02gcRrdK2I

(30:00) *they said the same thing back in the nineties, that we could transition into a post-industrial economy*

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s