First of all what does it mean for technology to have a life of it's own? This can be a difficult concept if you are in tune with prevailing social myths. We tend to believe most of what we are taught and what we are taught is part of the system in which technology has arisen. This basic worldview goes back hundreds of years and is no longer questioned by most of us. Part of the difficulty here is that the system that prevails also is a system that excludes real systems thinking. If that were not true this discussion would not be needed. Humans have a sort of arrogance about these matters that is evident in our relationship with the planet and our effect on it. The idea that technology can can have a "life of its own" is rather absurd in that context. Let's get to the core and then try to elaborate below the break. The core issue here is the role of circularity or self reference in our thought. If you adopt a belief structure (as science does, for example) that says circular reasoning is outside the system of logic we use then you restrict the universe of discourse severely. For centuries we have accepted this limit to our detriment. This would be a good restriction if it served us well. In fact it has not, except in a limited way,for a very important reason. That reason is very simple but also easily accepted even though it exposes a falacy in our reasoning. Read on below and we will discuss what is so fundamentally wrong with what we have believed for centuries.
How can science and the form of logic it feeds on be wrong about circularity and self reference? It can do so because it has created a surrogate world that follows its rules. In that world there are no real systems. Every system is merely the sum of its parts and you learn about that world by breaking it down into those parts and studying them.
In such a world the reality is one of machines. We use this idea for all of nature and we use it in medicine. In such a world when things go wrong you fix them.
That is all fine if the rules you adopted fit reality. But they don't. In fact most of the complex real world, especially living systems, are very different from this mechanistic model. The real complex world is replete with self referential and circular causal systems that have been excluded from scientific study.
To drive this point home realize that such systems are not computable. If you doubt this I have lots and lots of references that prove this conclusively.
So what are some the ramifications of this error? The circularity is nested in very important ways including our view of what our role in all this is. In particular, if what we have studied and learned so much about is only a subsector of a complex reality in which the whole is much more than the sum of its parts, then we are in trouble. We clearly use science (the limited form we have for centuries) to create technology. Technology then gets marketed and becomes a key factor in our economy. It then generates wealth that can be reinvested in the science and technology that produces more wealth. This spans many areas including electronics, transportation, energy, and weapons for "defense".
We have "locked in" (Brian Arthur) to fossil fuel energy and plastic and many many other things in agriculture for example that are very questionable. We have studies and science that tells us we are in trouble. Meanwhile the stuff that sells and produces wealth also produces power and especially the power to suppress arguments that would limit it.
What I have just described to you is a system. It is ma system thyat includes us but is not controlled by us. It is self feeding and capable of eliminating threats to itself much like an organism with an immune system.
This is new science and it struggles against the system's "immune system". It does not get support and is ignored as long as possible then attacked visciously.
The way you get out of this is to break open the self reinforcing loop. This is the kind of loop science denies are real. That is part of the loop. You will only have a chance at control when you realize that you are being controlled rather than being in control. The choice is yours. Arrogance and extinction or a chance at survival.
Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 1:34 PM PT: I want to thank terrybuck for putting HRs on these two comments:
OK time for this old professor to get some sleep (0+ / 1-)
Recommended by:
null
Hidden by:
terrybuck
I have given more than enough references for anyone who is genuinely interested. My book is the closest to the actual diary topic although I suspect few seemed to read the diary.
I think you have missed the point. (0+ / 1-)
Did you read the diary?