ontologic_conceptualist wrote:Yes, "Technology" is not unlike a most fierce of viruses H.I.V.[...]
It is this sort of alarmist claptrap that makes philosophical discussions of progress so depressing and stupid.
Philosophy and Religion are alone in all of academia in their inability to keep pace with technology, or to engage with the fact of radical change.
This has not always been the case, of course. There have been brave, optimistic, radical and future-oriented philosophies, but the modern philosophical establishment is too stagnant, too in-bred and too fearful of annihilation by the social sciences to be what it can be, or could be. Should be.
Scott makes good, sound points. Technological progress is not the only desirable form of progress. Other forms of advancement and civilisation are being neglected.
However to lay all the blame at the door of technology itself is lazy-minded and irresponsible. If there are failings, they are our failings. If there are successes (and there are more than there ever have been in the history of the world) then they our our successes.
This neo-Luddite fanaticism grows out of the same pessimistic cynicism that makes our societies unhappy, our economies fragile and our democracies weakened. I cannot express in word the black contempt I have to such attitudes.