Technology Instrumentalism

Technology Instrumentalism

            The definition of technology comes up as the knowledge or process put into use by human beings to come up with new products or ideas that assist us in our daily tasks. Most people mistake technology as the tools that result from our technological knowledge, but their definition is utterly misguided. Technology is massively dynamic and is continuously changing. The machines we used ten years ago are unquestionably outdated now. While such change is an advantage, is every new technology regarded as a blessing? Kevin Kelly, the founder of famous magazine Wired, states that technology is ever ultimately out of bounds. He adds that new technology is always an unalloyed good and that it is still better to have modern technology at our disposal and seek to manage it properly. My goal in this paper is to scrutinize Kelly’s statement and derive my decision to agree or not with him.

Whenever a new technology arises, there is always some form of excitement that revolves around the unveiling. A great example would be in 2008 when Tesla announced its first electric vehicle, or in 2007 when Apple announced its first iPhone. However, specific questions ascend regarding the new product, one of them being safety. Is the new technology safe to use? Does it cause harm in any manner to anyone? Security is a crucial concern, especially regarding the sensitivity of information some technologies carry. For instance, a military computer instrument should be heavily encrypted to prevent any leaks to enemy nations. A new vehicle model should meet the required safety standards, such as the provision of airbags or adequate dashboards to body space to minimize head impact in the cause of an accident.

All these are new features that align themselves with new inventions. Kelly states that it is always better to have new technology at our disposal. Safety standards are continually rising each day as new technology comes up; thus, firms come up with more modern, more efficient safety-based technologies such as Anti-Lock braking systems. The result that follows is, minimized deaths or injuries from accidents; therefore, I agree with Kelly.

Another question that may come up regards the environment; should we focus more on the comfort and advantages that new technology brings over the cost to the environment? For instance, we take the case of a food processing company. The firm intends to install a machine that will process packages five times faster, thus saving time and reducing operational costs. The machine, however, releases more fumes into the air than the current device used in the factory. Should the company go ahead and install it? Additionally, a question of human dignity also comes up Is it right for human beings to view their bodies as upgradeable machines? (Bernecker, 2020). People install robotic parts in their bodies as a form of tuning, and scientists continuously look for ways to enhance human genes. The result is the emergence of clones in an attempt to build more powerful versions of humans. Is it always better to have such new technologies at our disposal?

Deriving from Kelly’s point of view, he implies that every new technology grants us some increase in our powers. He adds that how we choose to use technology is what matters, we may either make excellent or harmful choices, and I agree with him. For instance, I will take the case of the current military supremacy battles among first-world nations, such as the United States and Russia. Each country focuses on developing new warhead technology, robot armies, drones, and the likes. These technologies bring superior advantages to the table. For example, drones minimize the deaths that result from air force pilots scanning enemy zones. However, the countries may choose to use these technologies in a harmful manner, such as bombing unnecessary targets and bullying lesser abled nations to their will. Kelly is right; we decide how we use new technology.

Kelly also states that there is no position where technology is not a causative agent in world problems. For every solution brought about by technology, a new problem arises. For instance, vehicles eased the burden of traveling long distances on foot or camels and horses. However, it simultaneously evoked the issue of emissions. Cars are arguably one of the most significant contributors to negative climatic change through the poisonous emissions they emit into the environment. They solved a problem and brought another one with them; thus, manufacturers are continually working to meet rising emissions standards in different countries. The internet is also a great example of such. While it eased the problem of information access, bringing all data into one central reference point, the internet accompanied pornographic content and cyberbullying. We should subsequently always be ready for the new problems brought about by new forms of technology.

No technology is ever completely out of bounds. Through this statement, Kelly means that it is always better to have new technology at our disposal and focus on managing it properly. (Bernecker, 2020). People love nostalgia, remembering the old days, and reliving past moments. That is why some rich people purchase vintage cars; they help them remember the olden days and, besides, promote that great feeling of owning something you could not afford as a child. The same applies to Windows Operating system users. A group of them were and continue to be reluctant to upgrade to the latest version of Windows 10, citing that Windows 7 was always the best and stable version of the OS. While these technologies were useful in their time, when an upgrade is made available, it is better to have it in your possession than have the old ones. On acquisition of the new technology, one can focus on managing it properly and tailoring it to gratify their needs better than the previous version did. Vintage cars were excellent in their days, but do not meet the standards modern cars bring, such as safety and comfort. Kelly is, therefore, right, and I agree with him.

Technology has no life of its own. We breathe life into it, modifying it according to what we intend it to do. The world is a place of good and evil; thus, two choices precede our usage of technology. We may either use it to do good or commit sin. Our moral compass dictates our usage of technology. It also influences the kinds of tools we build for ourselves. For instance, individual A may come up with a self-driving vehicle, while person B may come up with a talking sex doll. Both are new technologies, but one may be regarded as morally wrong by some people. The only thing considerable in technology is the intention of the users. Thus, a religious person may find the development of a sex doll to be offensive while a less- religious person finds no issue. Technology itself does not shift our morality. Thus, the choice we make with our use of technology is what matters. It is morally neutral, but our use of it is not (Bernecker, 2020).

Two forms of problems accompany technology; one is the problems convoyed with the introduction and use of any technology, and the other regards the poor choices people make and the malicious moves they make using technology. One of these problems is fixable through strategy and ‘technological fixes.’ For instance, a solution for the emissions problem brought about by old vehicles could be imposing stricter regulations on emissions standards. In addition to the two issues stated, non-instrumentalists presume another technological problem; some technologies are not morally acceptable, and there are limits to the development of technology. For example, one may not just wake up and decide to develop technologies that will aid in increasing terrorism, yet expect the backing of morally upright individuals.

Kelly’s view is mostly protopine and assumes the principle of utilitarianism. His proposal points out that any action should aim for an overall contribution to the well-being of human beings. Proponents of utilitarianism may support such claims, especially when extreme measures are necessary. Such may mean ignoring fundamental human rights or existing moral principles. If a new technology brings about a large percentage of benefits to individuals at a small price to pay, such is acceptable. For instance, if a new vaccine that benefits hundreds of thousands of people requires just two more people for clinical trials to advance it, with a guaranteed level of success afterward, the two individuals are a necessary sacrifice for the greater good of the high number of the expected beneficiaries. Kelly called the situation technium, the message that any choice is better than no choice. The subsequent success of the vaccine after the test on the two individuals brings about an option to the significant number of people on to evade potential disease, one that was not present before.

The moral choice brought about by technology may face criticism from several proponents of human rights, but Kelly is right in his technium concept. Most of the technologies that mostly benefit us today involved a ‘sacrificial lamb’ that resulted in the comfort that arises from our use. Millions of moral choices lead to eventual efficiency and multiplication in the number of options available and an increase in the sum of choice-makers. If one may view the small good brought about by these choices and multiply it by a million others, the scales tip towards greatness brought about by technium. It results in free will, new possibilities, and more freedom into the world. Technium involves more than the hardware associated with technology; it extends to culture, art, social institutions, and intellectual property. Software, philosophical concepts, and law are some of the intangibles comprised in technium. Through this principle, more inventions come about, existing tools are advanced, and we make more self-advancing connections (Bernecker, 2020). Technology is, therefore, always an unalloyed good due to the new choice that comes with each new good it brings.

Kelly presents a dilemma in his statement. Should we base our decisions regarding technology based on its benefits or our moral compass? One thing is constant, however. The choices we make on how to use technology depend entirely on us. We build technology regarding what we believe in, thus whether we choose to use it to do good or bad is upon us. Technology has no life of its own. It is also better to have more choices at our disposal than none at all, and technology aids in that. We would rather have new technology and decide how to manage it. The new possibilities brought by technology are also endless, rendering it an unalloyed good. Such brings me in agreement with Kevin Kelly’s claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Bernecker, S(2020). Technological Instrumentalism. Irvine, California: University Of California.