It doesn't really matter what the technology is. At the end of the day, all technology is serving a purpose. That derives from human values and preferences. Technology is always used in an instrumentalist frame relative to its use -- which is always to serve a human end. This is basically just another way of repeating David Hume's famous insight, "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions".
The key to understanding this insight is understanding that any logical or rational system always serves a normative goal (a human passion). In other words, we don't do advanced industrial farming because the technology availed itself to us. We do it, because we want to eat more food, and the technology improved the fulfillment of that passion.
If you recognize this insight, you should be skeptical of ALL technological deterministic reasoning. The Sovereign Individual, Hyperbitcoinization, AI apocalypses, etc. Some of these things may have grains of truth in them, on a first principles basis about what social orders could be *possible* given these technologies. But possibility space is just that. The other part of the equation is the probability of outcomes within that probability space. So, when we ask ourselves, based on everything we know about human nature, culture, economics, do we think that these scenarios that the possibility space opened up by these technologies is a probable future?
I think the answer is no! No, it's not. Mainly because the entire conclusion rests on a technological deterministic argument! Which just doesn't epistemically make sense!
brockm / Mike Brock
npub1hy…wk7cp
2024-03-30 19:56:42
in reply to nevent1q…ced3
Author Public Key
npub1hyqrsvl6hle8r5rc9cpshesm0mpcee75tgde4p5lhke5h83dyqqqdwk7cpPublished at
2024-03-30 19:56:42Event JSON
{
"id": "3d1b460ba14e7b7dd57dffdbd395f913ca46d44e2307aac089fc27fcc700caff",
"pubkey": "b9003833fabff271d0782e030be61b7ec38ce7d45a1b9a869fbdb34b9e2d2000",
"created_at": 1711828602,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"788f7eb7f1adcf123b91193abaec3f2996aeea749b578243fec15d9fe9e74c3c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9efc2bb0e61b810d64eb236c26bd301b52306ca05e215844c2e7797043248279",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b9003833fabff271d0782e030be61b7ec38ce7d45a1b9a869fbdb34b9e2d2000"
],
[
"p",
"fec09af44d75fd50c424db258980ef91b24d5114e70cc8a93e2f498715521059"
]
],
"content": "It doesn't really matter what the technology is. At the end of the day, all technology is serving a purpose. That derives from human values and preferences. Technology is always used in an instrumentalist frame relative to its use -- which is always to serve a human end. This is basically just another way of repeating David Hume's famous insight, \"reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions\". \n\nThe key to understanding this insight is understanding that any logical or rational system always serves a normative goal (a human passion). In other words, we don't do advanced industrial farming because the technology availed itself to us. We do it, because we want to eat more food, and the technology improved the fulfillment of that passion. \n\nIf you recognize this insight, you should be skeptical of ALL technological deterministic reasoning. The Sovereign Individual, Hyperbitcoinization, AI apocalypses, etc. Some of these things may have grains of truth in them, on a first principles basis about what social orders could be *possible* given these technologies. But possibility space is just that. The other part of the equation is the probability of outcomes within that probability space. So, when we ask ourselves, based on everything we know about human nature, culture, economics, do we think that these scenarios that the possibility space opened up by these technologies is a probable future?\n\nI think the answer is no! No, it's not. Mainly because the entire conclusion rests on a technological deterministic argument! Which just doesn't epistemically make sense!",
"sig": "f2d8c94f6ba193a426881e48e46f389cbb3b12e116c460f4b144f1a6bbb67163a03219259c6da18594fbf343f28827ec4b570f59ee5f6816519e054f532cc0b7"
}