Valdemar W.Setzer
Department of Computer Science
University of São Paulo, Brazil
vwsetzer@ime.usp.br http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer
Many people may find it strange that there may be any deep reason for the existence of technology. To justify this assertion, I have to begin by stating that I try to have no faith in anything. I consider myself as a spiritualist, but my "Weltanschauung" is not one of faith (I hope), but derives from my knowledge of the limitations of materialism (that is, the current scientific way of thinking which states that everything in the universe can be reduced to physical-chemical processes), as well as an observation of nature and of myself. For example, it is a personal experience that one may be absolutely free in his/her own thinking, which can be self-determined. That is, one may decide what is going to be the subject of the next thought - and maintain it there for some time; the success of this exercise in mental concentration depends on how much it has been practiced. Current scientific explanations for our thinking may suppose non-determinism or random behavior (for instance, using quantum loops), but not this self-determination. Observing organic nature one sees forms, for instance those of leaves of a certain species of plants, which clearly adhere to a model which must be external to each plant of the species; moreover, models are not physical objects! (Let us note that current scientific knowledge may assign some relation between genes and plant forms, but it does not explain how the form originates from the gene, or the gene constantly controls the form.) There are also other facts to consider, like a necessary physical origin of the universe and a necessary boundary for it, which make no physical sense; the lack of sense in material explanations of matter - the recent conclusions of the possible subdivision of quarks show that these explanations will never be satisfactory, or that probably we will never have a physical explanation for matter. All this shows me that there must be some non-physical "substance" in the universe and inside ourselves, and other states of consciousness where one should be able to consciously observe the non-physical through our thinking. This is due to the fact that with our thinking we may "observe" concepts, such as mathematical ones, the concept of a "rose", etc. My points of view also derive from the spiritualist model introduced by Rudolf Steiner in the first quarter of the 20th century, which I admire because it requires no position of faith, it makes a consistent theory with practical applications in every human activity, and encompasses any materialistic scientific fact (not judgment!).
One of the things I don't believe in is chance. I suppose that there is a cause for everything. This cause may eventually be non-physical, like the plan of a house an architect may have in his mind before he draws it and before the house is constructed. In particular, technology must have a cause for existing. One could say: technology exists because we humans have created it, period. But then one could ask: but why have we created it? Suppose that during the creation of machines (in this essay, I will restrict "technology" just to "machines" and "tools") we are in most cases being instruments of a higher will. I suppose that there are two aspects to be considered here: the "good" and the "bad". Yes, I am embarking here in judgments of value, something current science tries to avoid, making itself un-humane.
The fundamental "good" aspect of technology - and what gives it its mission - is, in my opinion, that it frees us from the forces of nature, both internal (that is, those that act within ourselves) and external. An example of the former are the limitations we have in moving ourselves: our limbs are subjected to certain physical laws and limitations. For instance, we are not able to jump 4m above the ground, run at 50km/h, or fly. So we construct machines that overcome these and other physical limitations, e.g. giving us the freedom of moving large distances in a short time. An example of external natural forces is the weather. Houses, heating and air conditioning may extend the activities we accomplish in other, less harsh regions or in more comfortable seasons. With electrical energy we may work or read at night (in a not so ancient time, one could consider "candles" as being part of technology).
Why do I consider "freeing ourselves from the forces of nature" to be a "good" thing? Because my spiritualist hypothesis shows me that the human being transcends nature. In fact, when an ancient cave man drew paintings on some cave wall, he was not being a natural being anymore. One may conjecture, in fact, that humans have never been fully natural beings. That's why we may be creative, and introduce novelties into the world. These novelties are spiritual impulses which we capture with our thinking and bring to the physical realm through our actions. Intuition, a rather non-scientific concept (ideas coming from nowhere?), may in fact be considered as an observation of a Platonic world of ideas that we make with our thinking (see Rudolf Steiner's "Die Philosophie der Freiheit", translated as "The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity", Rudolf Steiner Publications, Inc., West Nyack, NY 1963). Looking at our physical body, it is not possible to infer our highest inner activities: thinking and feeling. (But looking at an animal one may infer its main functionalities, which are imprinted in its body.) Try to lay down on a tropical beach and philosophize or do mathematics. These inner activities are extremely difficult to accomplish in such an environment: the heat and the strong light prevent us from concentrating in an inner activity requiring self-consciousness. In such a place one is drawn to the exterior, to unconsciousness. But if in the same geographical region we isolate ourselves inside an air-conditioned house, we will not have those difficulties.
I am not saying that we should separate ourselves from nature. On the contrary, I love to immerse myself into beautiful and calm natural sceneries. I love natural food, that is, the least industrialized possible. I love animals so much that I can't swallow their meat or ride a horse for pleasure. We have in common with nature our physical body, and we must respect and cherish it. But to exercise our highest inner activities, which are non-natural, we must isolate ourselves from nature's forces. And I consider as one of our missions to develop these higher activities, becoming in this sense less and less animal and natural. These activities are those that really characterize ourselves as humans. Through them we may use our primitive hands (in comparison to specialized front animal paws) to accomplish the finest individual works of art or caress a person who needs a delicate gesture of human warmth. I used the expression "individual" because if we consider, for instance, a spider web as a fine natural work of art, one should recognize that it contains no individuality - every spider of the same species constructs a web with exactly the same general characteristics, following a kind of program. This is not our case. I bet my house is quite different from any other one in the world (when we built it, my wife and I told our architect that we didn't want to live in a rectangular box of bricks and concrete, as one sees everywhere, and he followed the prescription). We also have impulses stemming from instincts, but contrary to animals we may decide not to follow those impulses, based upon a moral judgment which we reach through our thinking. Acting in full consciousness following moral judgments makes humans more humane and less animal and natural. There is no free compassion, unselfish love and morality in nature, just struggle to survive and reproduce.
Now to the "bad" side of technology. In general, every machine restricts our freedom. An extreme case is TV: neurophysiological research (e.g. Krugman, H.E., in Journal of Advertising Research 11,1, Feb. 1971, pp. 3-9, Walker, J., in Perceptual and Motor Skills 51, 1980, pp. 255-261) has shown that it induces a semi-hypnotic, drowsy state of consciousness in the viewer. Thus, a TV viewer is in general not able to remain conscious and, e.g., criticize what s/he is watching. That's why there was a perfect marriage between TV and propaganda - the latter is ideally transmitted to people that are not able to criticize the message. A car also isolates us from the environment, producing undesirable psychological side-effects.
We have here a paradox: the mission of technology is to free ourselves from the forces of nature, so we may become free and spiritually higher beings. But the opposite is being forced upon us: machines are restricting our freedom, and chaining ourselves to matter or to nature. For instance, computers force a programmer to think in terms of instructions that can be inserted into the machine - in other words, computers force a type of mathematical logical-symbolic, "machine-thinking." This happens also when someone is using a command language, such as one to control the functions of a text-editor (command and programming languages constitute formal, mathematical languages). Computers may free us from exercising machine-types of thoughts, as for instance the calculations in accounting (by the way, there was a perfect marriage between computers and the banking system, because the former are specialized in handling quantified data, and money is quantified and virtual per se). But on the other hand, as happens with any other machine, they limit our freedom.
The solution to this paradox is using machines with a high degree of consciousness. We should constantly ask ourselves: "Am I using this machine to gain some freedom?"; "What restrictions to freedom is this machine imposing upon me?"; "Is this machine elevating myself as a human being, or degrading myself to a sub-human animal or machine state?" (in fact, it is possible to consider machines as being sub-natural); "How can I use this machine enhancing its positive effects and diminishing its undesirable ones?" We should also ask these questions in relation to the influence of machines on other people. A very good exercise leading to more social awareness and sensitivity is to feel that one is responsible for whatever happens to any other individual in the world.
I think if we examine our use of machines under this light, we may put them into our service, and end the trend of being their slaves, as is happening nowadays. How many people think that machines are inevitable? It is long past time to end this fatalism. Are atom bombs here to stay, or do we wish to get rid of them? Are polluting cars here to stay, or do we wish to replace them by some better, non-polluting transportation means or even ban them from our cities? When I am using the Internet, am I giving myself more freedom or restricting it, by spending too much time each day with it instead of doing something more important, by reading e-mails too fast and superficially, by not calmly immersing myself into a subject, by handling participants in a list as machines and thus not greeting them and saying good-bye, and so on? Am I getting used to non-personal contacts and losing my ability to get an interest in real people that I constantly meet? (S.L.Talbott's first chapter of "The Future does not compute" brings other "bad" effects of the net.)
I think the so-called "New Age" should be in fact the age of Consciousness - acting according to our decisions based upon moral considerations, and not automatically or driven by feelings and instincts as animals do. It is already late enough to begin using machines in a conscious way - forcing them to give us more freedom instead of curbing it. Returning to a point I made in the beginning, in Goethe's "Faust", part I, scene of the "Studienzimmer" ("Office"), the latter asks Mephisto who he is, and gets the following answer: "Ein Teil von jener Kraft//die stets das Boese will und stets das Gute schafft" - "A part of that force which always wants evil, but always creates good" (my translation). Without "evil" there would be no "good" and thus no possibility of freedom of choice. This "good" depends nowadays on our actions. Mephisto is chained to his program - that's why he has no common sense, and uses technology to a point that everybody can see that it is destructive, as with pollution. If we consciously use machines to accomplish our highest, moral ideals, which do not come from nature, preserving our individuality and freedom, we will be redeeming him, transforming his influence into good. In fact, one may consider "evil" as a misplaced "good." Maybe he is waiting for us, maybe the whole universe is waiting for us - maybe after we were given the possibility of being free individuals, nature's creation has been accomplished and has stopped. Now it depends on us to continue the act of creation, elevating ourselves and nature. But this requires a new, conscious and moral approach to technology, which should be our free creation and not an action which we perform directed by those beings that I vaguely characterized as having a "higher will".
I used many times the word "moral." Let me finish by giving some characterization of it and draw some suggestions. Scientific knowledge and artistic skills are desirable, because they give us complementary knowledge on deep realities; unfortunately, in general education deals mostly with the former. But they don't help to make a person "good" (e.g., Hitler had great admiration for painting, music and architecture - in his unilateral and authoritarian manner). What we need to educate (and self-educate) is for social sensibility, compassion and social responsibility. Only with these three abilities may one accomplish moral deeds. Obviously, scientific knowledge and artistic skills are essential to develop and exercise them in freedom. As Steiner put in his book mentioned above, a moral action pressuposes freedom; he gives as an example the fact that a drunkard does not act in freedom, because s/he is not conscious. The big questions regarding our theme are then the following: How can we use machines to develop and exercise those three abilities? Are machines essential for that?
If actions can only be moral if they are accomplished in freedom, and machines may free us from the forces of nature, then they may be essential for our exercising moral deeds. But only if machines are viewed under a higher social perspective - making it possible for humans to become more humane and less animal. The three social abilities may be used as guidelines in our use of machines. For instance, in terms of the Internet, one may ask the following questions: Does it permit me to recognize some person's deep needs, or is the contact too superficial? Can I suffer together with him/her or does the means prevent me from having compassion for his/her problems? What actions can I perform with the net in order to help him/her? I think the answers to these questions depend on each case, and whether the net is really used for social reasons and not for egotistical ones. I have the personal experience that if the net is used with social consciousness, it may permit us to develop and exercise those abilities in a manner that the physical distance would prevent us from doing. This way we may use the net along the lines I described as being technology's deep mission and give it a positive social dimension.
Acknowledgment: I thank L.Monke for having corrected the worst English mistakes in most of the text.
Written in 1996. Last modified: Tue Feb 15 12:24:13 GMT 2000