Technopoly by Neil Postman

&

You are not a Gadget by Jaron Lanier



I recently read a couple of books by authors who refute this claim. Although the publishing dates are separated by 20 years, and the authors by a generation, they both eloquently argue that science, and its offspring applied technology, cannot offer the desired solutions. The reason is simple: Science and technology are tools that address a limited domain of human experience and existence, and the problems that we face are much more than ones of scientific ignorance or technical limitation.



The books are "Technopoly" by Neil Postman and "You Are Not A Gadget" by Jaron Lanier. "Technopoly" was written in a pre-Internet era and is a general criticism that we live in a culture, particularly in the United States, that has elevated technology to messiah--a role which it is particularly unsuited for. "You Are Not A Gadget", published in 2010, makes Postman's perspective seem prescient by offering concrete examples of the consequences of elevating technology (particularly software) to this role. Both authors warn that an unquestioning embrace of these tools as a cure-all for our ills is critically dangerous, and I hope to describe some of their criticisms in a way that will interest the reader in exploring their arguments.



Technopoly starts with a few chapters describing the mankind's journey from a "simpler" religious perspective about life and Man's place in it, through the long process of acquiring scientific knowledge and adopting the various significant technologies that this knowledge enabled, to the current status quo. This introduction is followed by criticisms of technological or scientific developments in several areas of human endeavor: philosophy and religion, and the effects of general scientific inquiry on Man's conception of himself; work/production and the effects of Taylorism; society and the influence of the social sciences and their desired effect on government policy; and finally, and I feel most importantly, culture and the effects of "the Information Age". Postman's main goal (which is echoed by Lanier) is to point out that human experience is much larger than the domain that science can explore, and that technological solutions to human problems focus solely on this domain with negative consequences. I was particularly interested in Postman's emphasis on the problems associated with modern access to a glut of information that is divorced from its necessary accompaniment of human wisdom, and the application of this perspective to an era of "post-truth" and the recent controversy over "fake news".



Although Postman has been described as a "neo-Luddite", his arguments are not against technological progress. "Technopoly" aims to give the reader a moment and a context to pause and consider the ramifications of this progress, and he asks the reader to consider both sides of the cultural adoption of technology, the gains and the losses, and reflect on the affected personal and societal values.



"You Are Not A Gadget", on the other hand, is a self-described "manifesto" by an author who could certainly not be described as a Luddite. Jaron Lanier is a software developer, virtual reality evangelist, and musician who has played an integral role in the modern technocentric American culture. His book is written post-Internet, post-Web 2.0, and bases its arguments on criticism on the resultant cultural and economic developments based on these technologies.



A common theme connecting Lanier and Postman's arguments is the idea the the most affective technologies are not "mechanical devices" themselves, but the ideas, assumptions, and generalizations made in the implementation and societal adoption of these devices. Unlike many entrepreneurs and technologists who have enthusiastically embraced (and marketed) software-based solutions to a variety of problem domains, Lanier has watched these developments and taken a continuingly more cautious viewpoint. Although he is certainly not the only critic of the potentials of Internet-based economic opportunities and Web 2.0 paradigms, he is one of the few who has been a part of the technological development and can convincingly and articulately describe the inherent problems with the current naive technological optimism. "You are Not A Gadget" pokes holes in many supposedly positive developments in Internet culture, from the effectiveness of "crowd-sourcing" to the economic benefits of self-publishing technologies. And in the years since its publication, many more books and articles have been written that echo both the examples and the sentiment.



At the core of Lanier's criticism is is an idea similar to Postman's critique of the effects of Taylorism: People are not machines, and to treat them as such is a critical misstep. The popular historical analogy of people as mechanical machines has evolved into comparing people['s brains] to computers, and indeed it's a popular modern past-time to imagine a future where people can upload their essence to a computer and continue existence as a digital version of themselves. Lanier is in a special position to add to the the outcry against this fantasy--there is more to the essence of a person than mere computational processes that can be modeled on a computer, no matter how fast the processor or large the storage capacity.



Although it may seem that both authors are arguing solely against the unquestioning embrace of technology-as-solution while saying little about the meaning and relevance of scientific inquiry to societal progress, I believe the implicit connection is laid bare in the implications of statements on the 'March For Science' website. The core principles state, again and again, that science "does things" for society. I think it's more accurate to say that people and technology (tools) do things, both positive and negative, for society--the fruits of scientific research merely provide means to make the tools. So in emphasizing the fundamental importance of "science" to societal health and progress, the implicit message is that the technological solutions born of scientific research are the key to moving forward successfully.



Both authors offer tentative solutions--more of idealogy than anything more concrete--as alternatives to this belief. But I feel the true value of the books lies in inspiring discussion about the effectiveness of a belief in "technology as savior". The reader must ask himself whether he/she agrees with the argument that science and technology do not address fundamental parts of the experience of Man. If this is so, what other areas of human endeavor should be emphasized to make up for where science and technological solutions lack? Do scientific inquiry and technology-based government policy really offer the best route to human progress? Now is an opportunity to discuss and decide. The 'March for Science' is a global cultural moment that is offering us an opportunity to discuss an important and urgent issue. Hundreds of thousands of people across the United States and other countries turned out to protest a denigration of the importance of scientific research to human progress. While it's generally agreed that scientific inquiry is an important tool to understand the natural world, the principles and goals of the movement seem to state that the process of science is much more than that. Their message boldly states that science "serves the common good", and that the process of scientific inquiry is the best path to finding solutions to cultural and and societal problems.I recently read a couple of books by authors who refute this claim. Although the publishing dates are separated by 20 years, and the authors by a generation, they both eloquently argue that science, and its offspring applied technology, cannot offer the desired solutions. The reason is simple: Science and technology are tools that address a limited domain of human experience and existence, and the problems that we face are much more than ones of scientific ignorance or technical limitation.The books are "Technopoly" by Neil Postman and "You Are Not A Gadget" by Jaron Lanier. "Technopoly" was written in a pre-Internet era and is a general criticism that we live in a culture, particularly in the United States, that has elevated technology to messiah--a role which it is particularly unsuited for. "You Are Not A Gadget", published in 2010, makes Postman's perspective seem prescient by offering concrete examples of the consequences of elevating technology (particularly software) to this role. Both authors warn that an unquestioning embrace of these tools as a cure-all for our ills is critically dangerous, and I hope to describe some of their criticisms in a way that will interest the reader in exploring their arguments.Technopoly starts with a few chapters describing the mankind's journey from a "simpler" religious perspective about life and Man's place in it, through the long process of acquiring scientific knowledge and adopting the various significant technologies that this knowledge enabled, to the current status quo. This introduction is followed by criticisms of technological or scientific developments in several areas of human endeavor: philosophy and religion, and the effects of general scientific inquiry on Man's conception of himself; work/production and the effects of Taylorism; society and the influence of the social sciences and their desired effect on government policy; and finally, and I feel most importantly, culture and the effects of "the Information Age". Postman's main goal (which is echoed by Lanier) is to point out that human experience is much larger than the domain that science can explore, and that technological solutions to human problems focus solely on this domain with negative consequences. I was particularly interested in Postman's emphasis on the problems associated with modern access to a glut of information that is divorced from its necessary accompaniment of human wisdom, and the application of this perspective to an era of "post-truth" and the recent controversy over "fake news".Although Postman has been described as a "neo-Luddite", his arguments are not against technological progress. "Technopoly" aims to give the reader a moment and a context to pause and consider the ramifications of this progress, and he asks the reader to consider both sides of the cultural adoption of technology, the gains and the losses, and reflect on the affected personal and societal values."You Are Not A Gadget", on the other hand, is a self-described "manifesto" by an author who could certainly not be described as a Luddite. Jaron Lanier is a software developer, virtual reality evangelist, and musician who has played an integral role in the modern technocentric American culture. His book is written post-Internet, post-Web 2.0, and bases its arguments on criticism on the resultant cultural and economic developments based on these technologies.A common theme connecting Lanier and Postman's arguments is the idea the the most affective technologies are not "mechanical devices" themselves, but the ideas, assumptions, and generalizations made in the implementation and societal adoption of these devices. Unlike many entrepreneurs and technologists who have enthusiastically embraced (and marketed) software-based solutions to a variety of problem domains, Lanier has watched these developments and taken a continuingly more cautious viewpoint. Although he is certainly not the only critic of the potentials of Internet-based economic opportunities and Web 2.0 paradigms, he is one of the few who has been a part of the technological development and can convincingly and articulately describe the inherent problems with the current naive technological optimism. "You are Not A Gadget" pokes holes in many supposedly positive developments in Internet culture, from the effectiveness of "crowd-sourcing" to the economic benefits of self-publishing technologies. And in the years since its publication, many more books and articles have been written that echo both the examples and the sentiment.At the core of Lanier's criticism is is an idea similar to Postman's critique of the effects of Taylorism: People are not machines, and to treat them as such is a critical misstep. The popular historical analogy of people as mechanical machines has evolved into comparing people['s brains] to computers, and indeed it's a popular modern past-time to imagine a future where people can upload their essence to a computer and continue existence as a digital version of themselves. Lanier is in a special position to add to the the outcry against this fantasy--there is more to the essence of a person than mere computational processes that can be modeled on a computer, no matter how fast the processor or large the storage capacity.Although it may seem that both authors are arguing solely against the unquestioning embrace of technology-as-solution while saying little about the meaning and relevance of scientific inquiry to societal progress, I believe the implicit connection is laid bare in the implications of statements on the 'March For Science' website. The core principles state, again and again, that science "does things" for society. I think it's more accurate to say that people and technology (tools) do things, both positive and negative, for society--the fruits of scientific research merely provide means to make the tools. So in emphasizing the fundamental importance of "science" to societal health and progress, the implicit message is that the technological solutions born of scientific research are the key to moving forward successfully.Both authors offer tentative solutions--more of idealogy than anything more concrete--as alternatives to this belief. But I feel the true value of the books lies in inspiring discussion about the effectiveness of a belief in "technology as savior". The reader must ask himself whether he/she agrees with the argument that science and technology do not address fundamental parts of the experience of Man. If this is so, what other areas of human endeavor should be emphasized to make up for where science and technological solutions lack? Do scientific inquiry and technology-based government policy really offer the best route to human progress? Now is an opportunity to discuss and decide.