Useful technology vs. technology for its own sake [Archive]

Technocrat

2nd May 2011, 01:38

Is it possible to distinguish between technology that benefits people in some way, and technology for its own sake?

I think so. I think a useful technology is one that has a measurable, positive effect on human health or happiness. In other words, the sole criteria for whether or not a technology is useful is if it has a measurably positive impact on the health or happiness of society as a whole. Note that this does not mean that something that is solely pleasing to the individual is excluded from the category of useful things: if something is pleasing solely to the individual but to no one else, but does not have a negative effect on their happiness or health, then the overall impact on the health or happiness of society is positive by the addition of the health or happiness of the individual.

If this is the case, then most of what is produced by capitalism today is useless because it either 1) has no positive impact on human health or happiness or 2) it has a positive impact on some individuals' health or happiness but this comes at the cost of an even greater negative impact on others' health or happiness.

Some technologies are definitely useful - things like dentistry or refrigeration definitely increase the health of people. Other things, like cars for example, are hard to justify as being useful if we are using the above definition of useful.

So, maybe this thread is mis-titled and should say "useful technology vs. useless technology"?

ckaihatsu

2nd May 2011, 07:22

Snacsnoc

2nd May 2011, 07:28

This seems to be very subjective. I think that some children's toys are obviously technology for it's own sake just to sell. For example, toy X marketed as having function Y just to have more appeal.
Technology that would benefit the worker (tools for example) versus a machine that replaces the worker would be hard to justify.

JazzRemington

2nd May 2011, 08:37

ckaihatsu

2nd May 2011, 09:11

Well, consider for what purpose a technology is useful or not useful. For watching DVDs, a VCR would be useless because you can't watch DVDs on a VCR. That doesn't mean VCR players are useless in general, but rather for this specific purpose. I don't think it's possible for something to be complete useless, because one could always use something for some purpose. I found a busted guitar effects paddle on ebay once, and the seller mentioned it could be used for learning how peddles are put together.

Okay, I was hoping to be less explicit and merely *indicate* what I mean to say here, but I'll go ahead and put the real-deal, lowdown shit in between spoiler tags -- you have now been warned.

So, yeah, this is all fine and everything, but naming any *specific* technology or tool is actually *begging the question* -- more to the point is: For what purpose *for the person* does the technology serve -- ?

- Is it use-*ful* or use-*less* that someone puts in the time, effort, and expense to buy that guitar effects pedal so as to learn how pedals are put together -- ? (Then what?)(So what?)

(This goes for *any* object you may *ever* have come in contact with.)

(If you read the spoiler your mind, brain, and very existence may now be spinning on the very edge of sanity as you have known it. Take a few deep breaths and try to hold your shit together while you readjust over the next few years and decades -- hopefully.)

= D

Technocrat

2nd May 2011, 18:42

And, just to point out / add more flux to the incoherence of the definition of the 'technology' category here....

- How would you categorize children's (technology-based) *toys*? Useful? Useless? Frivolous? Positive?

- Or, to generalize, how about *any* kind of technology -- like DVD players or computers -- that can convey pleasure-oriented / fun content -- ?

- Finally, how about technological tools that enable the exercise of creative endeavors, as for art (or music) -- ? Use-*ful*? Use-*less*?

(Mmmmmbuahahahahaha...!)

It's easy to measure the "usefulness" of "fun things."

If the sole purpose of something is to increase happiness, then it should have a measurable impact on the happiness of society.

Self-reported happiness levels have remained flat since the late 1950s, suggesting that most of the extra stuff we are consuming today does not have an overall positive impact on happiness!

So, I think simply by asking the population: "How happy are you?" we can determine if something designed solely to make people happy actually accomplishes that.

Things that are meant to improve human health are easier to measure, since human health is easier to measure than happiness. However, I see no great difficulty with measuring happiness, either. You simply ask people how happy they are.

ckaihatsu

2nd May 2011, 20:20

It's easy to measure the "usefulness" of "fun things."

Hmmmmmm, note that you have to use quote marks around 'usefulness', indicating that fun things are not exactly useful.

(I'll maintain that 'fun' and 'useful' are *not* complementary.)

If the sole purpose of something is to increase happiness, then it should have a measurable impact on the happiness of society.

Self-reported happiness levels have remained flat since the late 1950s, suggesting that most of the extra stuff we are consuming today does not have an overall positive impact on happiness!

'Happiness' implies a *peak* experience, and/or one that can stay at a relatively high plateau -- at least in *my* book.... There's no way you can look at stats and blithely attribute 'happiness' -- even if validly measured -- to our use of "fun" technology.

So, I think simply by asking the population: "How happy are you?" we can determine if something designed solely to make people happy actually accomplishes that.

You would have to be measuring levels of "fun technology" usage at the same time, and also provide controls against each of those measured variables so as to hone in on each as its own independent variable.

Things that are meant to improve human health are easier to measure, since human health is easier to measure than happiness. However, I see no great difficulty with measuring happiness, either. You simply ask people how happy they are.

Yeah, give or take -- this is all about social statistical surveying.

Technocrat

3rd May 2011, 05:17

Hmmmmmm, note that you have to use quote marks around 'usefulness', indicating that fun things are not exactly useful.

(I'll maintain that 'fun' and 'useful' are *not* complementary.)

It depends on the definitions. If you define ''useful" as that which has a positive effect on the health of happiness of society, then what is the problem?

'Happiness' implies a *peak* experience, and/or one that can stay at a relatively high plateau -- at least in *my* book.... There's no way you can look at stats and blithely attribute 'happiness' -- even if validly measured -- to our use of "fun" technology.We can look at happiness research dating back to the 1950s which shows that self-reported happiness levels have not increased since then. From this, we can infer that most of the additional things which we consume today which were not available then have not had a positive impact on the overall happiness of society.

You would have to be measuring levels of "fun technology" usage at the same time, and also provide controls against each of those measured variables so as to hone in on each as its own independent variable.Only if you're trying to measure the usefulness of each individual object. I agree that would be difficult because of the number of variables involved. What I was suggesting is a lot simpler. You simply keep track of how happy society is over time. Let's say you release a new technology and 3 years later happiness levels are the same. It can be pretty safely concluded that the technology did not increase happiness.

Yeah, give or take -- this is all about social statistical surveying.I don't get bogged down in the particulars of how such a survey would be performed, I think it is sufficient to say that sociologists and psychologists have adequate methods for performing this task, and have already been doing it for decades now.

What I'm basically advocating is an anti-materialist thesis. We know that the things which have the greatest lasting impact on happiness are 1) meaningful relationships 2) meaningful work. Consumer goods are not anywhere on the list of things which greatly contribute to happiness. A certain level of material security and comfort is required, but beyond that, additional consumption of consumer goods does not increase happiness and may actually decrease it. If we know this, it is not necessary for us to calculate the utility of every individual thing, including those things which we have yet to make.

ckaihatsu

3rd May 2011, 05:54

It depends on the definitions. If you define ''useful" as that which has a positive effect on the health of happiness of society, then what is the problem?

I'll play devil's advocate here, just for the hell (heh) of it....

It may be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that one kind of technology has a 'usefully' healthy effect on a person's life where deprivation from it would lead to unmistakable unease and stress. In other words, it's much more difficult to demonstrate that a specific kind of "fun" technology is as critical to someone as *medical* technology -- say, insulin -- is to a person's health.

We can look at happiness research dating back to the 1950s which shows that self-reported happiness levels have not increased since then. From this, we can infer that most of the additional things which we consume today which were not available then have not had a positive impact on the overall happiness of society.

No, sorry, this is still too much of an assumption to make -- other social characteristics (factors) have changed significantly in the past few decades, outside of just consumer technology and related services. (The global economy and the job market may be two significant factors here.)

I may tend to agree with you myself but it couldn't be on the basis of this argument as fact.

Only if you're trying to measure the usefulness of each individual object. I agree that would be difficult because of the number of variables involved. What I was suggesting is a lot simpler. You simply keep track of how happy society is over time. Let's say you release a new technology and 3 years later happiness levels are the same. It can be pretty safely concluded that the technology did not increase happiness.

Nope, too much of an assumption.

I don't get bogged down in the particulars of how such a survey would be performed, I think it is sufficient to say that sociologists and psychologists have adequate methods for performing this task, and have already been doing it for decades now.

Yeah, you may want to look over some social statistics methodology, if only to get a sense for how it's done. It was one of the better courses I took in school, actually.

What I'm basically advocating is an anti-materialist thesis. We know that the things which have the greatest lasting impact on happiness are 1) meaningful relationships 2) meaningful work.

These are material factors as well -- (non-idealism) -- and so would be part of a materialist (social science) analysis.

Consumer goods are not anywhere on the list of things which greatly contribute to happiness. A certain level of material security and comfort is required, but beyond that, additional consumption of consumer goods does not increase happiness and may actually decrease it. If we know this, it is not necessary for us to calculate the utility of every individual thing, including those things which we have yet to make.

Certainly.

Technocrat

3rd May 2011, 19:52

I'll play devil's advocate here, just for the hell (heh) of it....

It may be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that one kind of technology has a 'usefully' healthy effect on a person's life where deprivation from it would lead to unmistakable unease and stress. In other words, it's much more difficult to demonstrate that a specific kind of "fun" technology is as critical to someone as *medical* technology -- say, insulin -- is to a person's health.

The reason it may be harder to demonstrate that "fun" technology is critical is because it isn't(!)

This is because the factors that have a lasting impact on happiness turn out to be non-material things, like meaningful relationships and meaningful work. "Fun technology" turns out to be one of the smallest factors effecting happiness, if happiness research is to be believed. Many countries that lack access to our "fun technology" have happiness levels that are many times higher. Mexico, for example, has happiness levels around four times those of the US, despite being significantly poorer.

So yes, the kind of society posited by this thesis would appear very "spartan" in comparison with our own, but it would be rich in the things that mattered: meaningful work, meaningful relationships, free access to healthy food, medicine, shelter, education, etc.

No, sorry, this is still too much of an assumption to make -- other social characteristics (factors) have changed significantly in the past few decades, outside of just consumer technology and related services. (The global economy and the job market may be two significant factors here.)

I may tend to agree with you myself but it couldn't be on the basis of this argument as fact.Well, they have done multiple such studies on several different countries, including Mexico, Great Britain, and Japan. All show a similar pattern: happiness increases with increased material consumption up to a certain point, and then beyond that has no effect on happiness.

If anything, your "other factors" argument supports my argument. Let's say that all our new gadgets really did increase happiness, but that "other factors" decreased it by at least as much as it was increased by. If anything, this shows that those "other factors" (factors besides increased material consumption) had more of an effect than material consumption did. I completely agree, BTW. One of the many things that has changed since the 1950s is that the income gap between rich and poor has grown tremendously. So, increased material consumption may have led to an increase in happiness, but this was less of a factor than inequality, proving that other factors (inequality) had a greater impact than material consumption. If true, this means consumption could be reduced but distributed more equally and happiness would increase.

These are material factors as well -- (non-idealism) -- and so would be part of a materialist (social science) analysis.Sorry, I was using the word "materialism" differently. I wasn't using it in the social sciences sense, I was using it to mean that aspect of our culture where material goods are highly valued as a means to increase happiness. I think this is one of the biggest lies of capitalism.

ckaihatsu

3rd May 2011, 22:12

The reason it may be harder to demonstrate that "fun" technology is critical is because it isn't(!)

Well, now to "flip" and play devil's advocate to my previous devil's advocate -- it *is* important for people to have access to leisurely / "fun" avenues of activity in their lives, preferably of their own choosing. If technology assists this then we can *loosely* (generally) say that "fun technology is critical".

[The] factors that have a lasting impact on happiness turn out to be non-material things, like meaningful relationships and meaningful work. "Fun technology" turns out to be one of the smallest factors effecting happiness, if happiness research is to be believed.

I'm going to have to "interrupt" here and just note, again, that any studies that purport to isolate and quantify the effects of 'fun technology' -- among so many other qualitative social / life factors affecting a person's overall life experience and happiness -- would necessarily have much to explain for in their methodology. (In other words it's *not* an easy undertaking to do what you're describing here, to any degree of scientific significance.)

(Many of these social topics, like this one, that make for interesting informal conversation are actually quite intricate to verify if attempted in a scientific way in the field.)

Many countries that lack access to our "fun technology" have happiness levels that are many times higher. Mexico, for example, has happiness levels around four times those of the US, despite being significantly poorer.

So yes, the kind of society posited by this thesis would appear very "spartan" in comparison with our own, but it would be rich in the things that mattered: meaningful work, meaningful relationships, free access to healthy food, medicine, shelter, education, etc.

Well, they have done multiple such studies on several different countries, including Mexico, Great Britain, and Japan. All show a similar pattern: happiness increases with increased material consumption up to a certain point, and then beyond that has no effect on happiness.

Yeah, I seem to recall coming across this kind of data and conclusions during my studies in the subject.

If anything, your "other factors" argument supports my argument. Let's say that all our new gadgets really did increase happiness, but that "other factors" decreased it by at least as much as it was increased by.

Since this is your hypothetical supposition you can't then go ahead and arbitrarily / summarily use it as if it were actual factual evidence in any discussion here.

If anything, this shows that those "other factors" (factors besides increased material consumption) had more of an effect than material consumption did. I completely agree, BTW. One of the many things that has changed since the 1950s is that the income gap between rich and poor has grown tremendously. So, increased material consumption may have led to an increase in happiness, but this was less of a factor than inequality, proving that other factors (inequality) had a greater impact than material consumption. If true, this means consumption could be reduced but distributed more equally and happiness would increase.

Dude, seriously, look into some social science methodology because, while your intentions are good, you're just making stuff up here. (You're drawing arbitrary conclusions based on your chosen selection of social factors.)

Sorry, I was using the word "materialism" differently. I wasn't using it in the social sciences sense, I was using it to mean that aspect of our culture where material goods are highly valued as a means to increase happiness. I think this is one of the biggest lies of capitalism.

Got it.

Technocrat

4th May 2011, 05:49

Well, now to "flip" and play devil's advocate to my previous devil's advocate -- it *is* important for people to have access to leisurely / "fun" avenues of activity in their lives, preferably of their own choosing. If technology assists this then we can *loosely* (generally) say that "fun technology is critical".

Sure, people need various amusements. You cross a line though when you suggest that these amusements need to be of a certain technological nature.

Even if a certain technology turns out to be fun and can be shown to yield positive utility in that regard, you still have to consider the overall cost to society of producing that technology. In the end, it is hard to justify certain technological amusements when sustainability concerns are taken into account.

I'm going to have to "interrupt" here and just note, again, that any studies that purport to isolate and quantify the effects of 'fun technology' -- among so many other qualitative social / life factors affecting a person's overall life experience and happiness -- would necessarily have much to explain for in their methodology. (In other words it's *not* an easy undertaking to do what you're describing here, to any degree of scientific significance.)I already agreed with that, though - this is made much easier if you take my above statement into account. I realize now that this is where I should have started: Of course, people should be allowed access to whatever amusements they want. However, one has to weight the benefit of consuming something against the cost of producing it. The total "value" of something would be the benefit to human health - psychological and physical, minus the cost to human health, with "human health" being that of all society.

You argue that it is too difficult to determine the overall utility something has, but people to do it all the time. They weigh the costs against the benefit, and although there is nothing being "quantified," there are certain choices that almost everyone would make in the same situation, if we are using the collective experience of humanity as our guide. I would argue that there is no other indication of utility than the experiences of humanity, both historical and current.

Besides the above - if one were to try to argue for the supposed happiness-related utility of consuming a particular thing, they also have to demonstrate that the same utility could not be obtained in a better way.

Here the concept of use values is, well, useful. I think you're familiar with the concept so I won't bother to expound on it here.

What I'm talking about is producing use values only and only in the most efficient way possible, and only those use values that have a measurable effect on human health.

We don't need population studies to demonstrate if something has an impact on happiness, although it does help. It's enough to know that increases in material consumption beyond a certain point have no effect on happiness - we know that anything beyond that point is not going to have an effect.

Since this is your hypothetical supposition you can't then go ahead and arbitrarily / summarily use it as if it were actual factual evidence in any discussion here.This isn't my hypothesis - I used this as an example because other authors have written about the growing income gap as a source of unhappiness.

Dude, seriously, look into some social science methodology because, while your intentions are good, you're just making stuff up here. (You're drawing arbitrary conclusions based on your chosen selection of social factors.)
I've taken a few social science courses, and that's pretty much what they always do. Any scientific study is only going to be able to make conclusions about the factors being looked at. That's the inherent difficulty with social sciences - there are so many factors at play that it is nearly impossible to isolate any one factor and draw water-tight conclusions from it.

ckaihatsu

4th May 2011, 06:17

Sure, people need various amusements. You cross a line though when you suggest that these amusements need to be of a certain technological nature.

Even if a certain technology turns out to be fun and can be shown to yield positive utility in that regard, you still have to consider the overall cost to society of producing that technology. In the end, it is hard to justify certain technological amusements when sustainability concerns are taken into account.

Well, sure, *in general* -- as long as you don't ask me to give up my fleet of flying amusement-park airplanes we'll continue to get along just fine here....

= )

I already agreed with that, though - this is made much easier if you take my above statement into account. I realize now that this is where I should have started: Of course, people should be allowed access to whatever amusements they want. However, one has to weight the benefit of consuming something against the cost of producing it. The total "value" of something would be the benefit to human health - psychological and physical, minus the cost to human health, with "human health" being that of all society.

You argue that it is too difficult to determine the overall utility something has, but people to do it all the time. They weigh the costs against the benefit, and although there is nothing being "quantified," there are certain choices that almost everyone would make in the same situation, if we are using the collective experience of humanity as our guide. I would argue that there is no other indication of utility than the experiences of humanity, both historical and current.

Yeah, of course I agree here on a *material* basis, since that's all there is. But you definitely can't use the *current* societal material paradigm as any kind of a guide to go by since it's based in capitalist commodity production, and its "pricing scheme", as you would put it. People are forced by default to make judgments based on capitalistic valuations, unfortunately. This confers a massive privilege to those who control disproportionate amounts of capital.

Besides the above - if one were to try to argue for the supposed happiness-related utility of consuming a particular thing, they also have to demonstrate that the same utility could not be obtained in a better way.

Here the concept of use values is, well, useful. I think you're familiar with the concept so I won't bother to expound on it here.

What I'm talking about is producing use values only and only in the most efficient way possible, and only those use values that have a measurable effect on human health.

We don't need population studies to demonstrate if something has an impact on happiness, although it does help. It's enough to know that increases in material consumption beyond a certain point have no effect on happiness - we know that anything beyond that point is not going to have an effect.

Yeah, *in general* -- and, yeah, that information should definitely be out there for everyone, like any other public service information.

Case-by-case, though, there's always those outside the norm, of course, meaning that some pursuits / pleasures will differ from most and will be relatively more resource-intensive.

This isn't my hypothesis - I used this as an example because other authors have written about the growing income gap as a source of unhappiness.

Okay, fair enough -- I have no need to be contentious here.

I've taken a few social science courses, and that's pretty much what they always do. Any scientific study is only going to be able to make conclusions about the factors being looked at. That's the inherent difficulty with social sciences - there are so many factors at play that it is nearly impossible to isolate any one factor and draw water-tight conclusions from it.

Yup, you know.

pranabjyoti

5th May 2011, 08:16

In history, there are good examples of "toys turned into useful machine". Hero, the inventor, just discovered a toy for children of ancient Greece. But, without that, we are now totally in dark. I am pretty sure, what is just "technology for technologies today" can certainly have the potential to turn up something very useful in future.
Ancient China discovered many things that was nothing more than toys or gadgets of fun of emperors or feudal lords, but later they turned out to be technologies without which we are just unable to walk today.

ckaihatsu

5th May 2011, 09:05

---

In history, there are good examples of "toys turned into useful machine". Hero, the inventor, just discovered a toy for children of ancient Greece. But, without that, we are now totally in dark. I am pretty sure, what is just "technology for technologies today" can certainly have the potential to turn up something very useful in future.
Ancient China discovered many things that was nothing more than toys or gadgets of fun of emperors or feudal lords, but later they turned out to be technologies without which we are just unable to walk today.

An aeolipile (or aeolipyle, or eolipile), also known as a Hero engine, is a rocket style[1] jet engine[2] which spins when heated. In the 1st century AD, Hero of Alexandria described the device,[3] and many sources give him the credit for its invention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

[The slaves] had very little interest in improving their techniques or the quality of their output, and it discouraged improvements in labour productivity.

Slave revolts do not punctuate the history of Greece in the same way that peasant revolts occur in the history of China. This is because the character of Greek, and later Roman, slavery made it very difficult for the slaves to organise against their exploiters. They were overwhelmingly captives from wars waged across the Mediterranean, the Balkans, Asia Minor and even southern Russia.45 They were deliberately mixed together in the slave markets so that those living and working next to each other, coming from different cultures and speaking different languages, could only communicate with difficulty through the Greek dialect of their masters. And the master could usually rely on other Greeks to help punish rebellious slaves and hunt escapees. So while the Spartans’ Helot serfs in Messenia could organise together, eventually rising up and liberating themselves, the slaves proper could not. For most of the time, opposition to their exploitation could only take the form of passive resentment. This resentment was itself an important factor in Greek and, later, Roman history. It meant the direct producers had very little interest in improving their techniques or the quality of their output, and it discouraged improvements in labour productivity. Furthermore, the need to keep the slaves in their place formed the background to whatever other decisions politicians or rulers might make. But the slaves were rarely in a position to intervene in the historical process on their own behalf.

Harman, _A People's History of the World: From the Stone Age to the New Millennium_, pp. 64-65

Technocrat

5th May 2011, 20:06

---
...

This is slightly OT, but I've always thought that the ancient greeks possessed the knowledge needed for an "industrial" society - they had all the mathematics, science, etc needed to make it happen. We have found some steam-powered toys (toy robots) built by the ancient Greeks, demonstrating that they at least had the knowledge to make machines. They just didn't have any motivation to create the labor-saving devices which are necessary for mass production and "industrialization" to occur, because they had slave labor.

MarxSchmarx

6th May 2011, 06:46

ckaihatsu

6th May 2011, 08:02

You're answering your own question here, at least in part:

I don't understand why "usefulness" (utility?) has to have an explicitly social dimension.

[A] technology like, say, agriculture [has] had enormous social effect.

So it looks like you're indicating the significance of *scale* -- if so, I would wholly agree. Applied science, or technology, benefits anyone who has access to it and/or to its fruits. Non-science endeavors, however, like those of art and literature, are more "useless" since they can be done by individuals and so *don't* require socialized production (although adequate social-material conditions must be present to at least allow them to happen), and the effects of cultural production -- say, playing an instrument -- will usually be quite *limited* in reach, unless technology is added to extend the music's distribution.

For example, if I pick up a stick to spear a fish for dinner,

And yet I don't think anybody would say that using the stick was a useless gesture - quite irrespective of a social role for the technology.

*No one* would say that your use of the stick as a tool for procuring food was a "useless gesture". Obviously your spearing a fish to obtain your dinner was *not* an action of social communication, which is what the term 'gesture' implies. So the individualistic action was definitely more "scientific" and useful, though not social in scale.

On the topic of scale and social usefulness I'm sure you'd agree that it's better for a population to have developed agriculture (and/or aquaculture) than to be a population of individualistic fish-spearers, even if the food supply is plentiful. Agriculture for (more-populated) urban areas *requires* a fairly developed degree of organization, and thus the social dimension comes to the fore.

The more highly developed and enlightened our social relations -- as perhaps transcending the limitations of balkanized private interests over the management of wealth, assets, and resources -- the more enabled we *all* can be in our individual and social lives, with more advanced and sophisticated cultural and technological products at our disposal.

Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://postimage.org/image/1d4ldatxg/

pranabjyoti

6th May 2011, 12:08

...

This is slightly OT, but I've always thought that the ancient greeks possessed the knowledge needed for an "industrial" society - they had all the mathematics, science, etc needed to make it happen. We have found some steam-powered toys (toy robots) built by the ancient Greeks, demonstrating that they at least had the knowledge to make machines. They just didn't have any motivation to create the labor-saving devices which are necessary for mass production and "industrialization" to occur, because they had slave labor.
Correction, Greeks may had geometry but no mathematics. Modern mathematics started with the invention of 0 and complex mathematical models like differentiation, integration was just beyond their reach. Modern mathematics was introduced from Arabs in Europe by Fibonacci during the Renaissance era.

MarxSchmarx

6th May 2011, 12:10

Right, indeed

I don't understand why "usefulness" (utility?) has to have an explicitly social dimension.You're answering your own question here

To rephrase, what I really meant was that usefulness is distinct from the social benefit of an action and that to conflate the two (as the op seems to do) is a mistake. From what I gather from your reply, we are basically in agreement on this point. As you note, we can of course talk about the "social usefulness" of a technology, but that is a separate thing from the general utility of a technology.

Technocrat

6th May 2011, 16:34

I don't understand why "usefulness" (utility?) has to have an explicitly social dimension.

For example, if I pick up a stick to spear a fish for dinner, it's not obvious society has benefited in any meaningful way from the use of the stick - of course all actions have some tangential social effect but in this case it's really, really minuscule and unhelpful to compare this to a technology like, say, agriculture that has had enormous social effect. And yet I don't think anybody would say that using the stick was a useless gesture - quite irrespective of a social role for the technology.

I think I addressed this earlier -

Let's say I consume something that has no discernible effect on the rest of society, either positive or negative.

However, I get some benefit out of it, personally.

If we measure "the health/happiness of society" as the aggregate of the health/happiness of all individuals living in that society, then the "happiness/health of society" has increased when the happiness/health of an individual has increased, assuming that no one else was effected (as per your example).

If an act has no effect on anyone but an individual or a small group, we need look no further than the individual or that small group when determining if the overall effect on society has been positive or negative.

Technocrat

6th May 2011, 16:47

Well, sure, *in general* -- as long as you don't ask me to give up my fleet of flying amusement-park airplanes we'll continue to get along just fine here....

I think you get it - certain things have a cost that is greater than the benefit which they provide. I think in the final analysis, most of the technological toys we have in our current society have a cost that is higher than the benefit provided. For example, I love video games, but I'm pretty sure I could be just as happy without them if I lived in a community where meaningful work and meaningful relationships were easily obtained, located in some pristine natural setting.

Yeah, of course I agree here on a *material* basis, since that's all there is. But you definitely can't use the *current* societal material paradigm as any kind of a guide to go by since it's based in capitalist commodity production, and its "pricing scheme", as you would put it. People are forced by default to make judgments based on capitalistic valuations, unfortunately. This confers a massive privilege to those who control disproportionate amounts of capital.No disagreement here.

ckaihatsu

6th May 2011, 17:27

I think I addressed this earlier -

Let's say I consume something that has no discernible effect on the rest of society, either positive or negative.

However, I get some benefit out of it, personally.

If we measure "the health/happiness of society" as the aggregate of the health/happiness of all individuals living in that society, then the "happiness/health of society" has increased when the happiness/health of an individual has increased, assuming that no one else was effected (as per your example).

If an act has no effect on anyone but an individual or a small group, we need look no further than the individual or that small group when determining if the overall effect on society has been positive or negative.

This is generally unobjectionable but it's worth saying that a society is *never* only the sum of its (individualistic) parts, as you're describing. Note the bolded part here:

Non-science endeavors, however, like those of art and literature, are more "useless" since they can be done by individuals and so *don't* require socialized production (although adequate social-material conditions must be present to at least allow them to happen)

A society, if nothing else, at least displaces negative and destructive influences from disrupting the general health of its population. We should consider society as being a functional "organism" of sorts since its *internal* processes are quite similar to those of an individual biological system.

A relatively more politically progressive and socially enlightened society will be in a position to shower its population (of individuals, if you like) with the benefits that result from *societal*, *emergent* dynamics as a result of many people working in concert. This is a higher (more generalized) level of functioning than the efforts of each as individuals.

I think you get it - certain things have a cost that is greater than the benefit which they provide. I think in the final analysis, most of the technological toys we have in our current society have a cost that is higher than the benefit provided. For example, I love video games, but I'm pretty sure I could be just as happy without them if I lived in a community where meaningful work and meaningful relationships were easily obtained, located in some pristine natural setting.

No disagreement here.

Here you're decidedly flirting with pastoralism.

We can't forget that we live in highly industrialized human societies today, in which mechanized production on mass scales relieves people from doing manual labor on an individualistic or small-group basis to secure the means of life.

What you do for recreation and what your social lifestyle is have no bearing on this system of mechanized production. (There can only be a 'cost' to production if people changing their activity *adds* to this cost of production somehow by being *disruptive* of the production process. This is why mass industrial labor strikes are so effective for the proletariat, because its labor in the factory is highly leveraged and depended-on.)

Technocrat

6th May 2011, 17:48

This is generally unobjectionable but it's worth saying that a society is *never* only the sum of its (individualistic) parts, as you're describing. Note the bolded part here:

A society, if nothing else, at least displaces negative and destructive influences from disrupting the general health of its population. We should consider society as being a functional "organism" of sorts since its *internal* processes are quite similar to those of an individual biological system.

A relatively more politically progressive and socially enlightened society will be in a position to shower its population (of individuals, if you like) with the benefits that result from *societal*, *emergent* dynamics as a result of many people working in concert. This is a higher (more generalized) level of functioning than the efforts of each as individuals.

Chris, I don't think the above is incompatible with what I've said. The "happiness of society" or "health of society" is measured as the aggregate of all individual's happiness or health. So, an individual act which affects no one else but the individual actually does increase the "happiness/health" of society as a whole if it increases the "happiness/health" of an individual.

To determine whether or not an act is good or bad, we need to consider how it impacts all those effected by it. In some cases, this means we need to consider all of society. In most cases, it means we need only consider the individual or group that is effected.

So, the functioning of society cannot be reduced to the aggregate of individuals, since as you point out, things are possible when people work in groups that aren't possible for the individual and can't be reduced to the sum of individual actions. However, the utility of an act can be determined in the way I've described above.

I think this addresses your concern about the "usefulness" of art/literature/etc.

Here you're decidedly flirting with pastoralism.Not really - I definitely see a role for many technologies. Dentistry, for example, is extremely useful. Refrigeration improves the nutrition of a community. There are many technologies which fit in with a "dematerialist" society as I've described it.

Research has shown that material consumption has an almost negligible effect on happiness (after a certain point) compared to "non-material" things like relationships, work, religion, etc. Nature has also been shown to make people happier, so my ideal community would have easy access to unspoiled wilderness, and opportunities for meaningful work and meaningful relationships. Technology would be used only where it benefited the health of the community (as I've defined it previously). I don't see what's so "pastoralist" about that.

We can't forget that we live in highly industrialized human societies today, in which mechanized production on mass scales relieves people from doing manual labor on an individualistic or small-group basis to secure the means of life.Right, I'm not suggesting that mass production isn't useful. It definitely increases the health of a population, by freeing people from manual labor as you point out. In fact if we look at life expectancy, it roughly doubled in England with the advent of industrialization. So that's a pretty clear indicator that there are some aspects of industrialization worth keeping. I'm just pointing out that not every aspect of industrialization can be said to be just as useful, and in fact, many aspects of industrialization today cause more harm than good.

What you do for recreation and what your social lifestyle is have no bearing on this system of mechanized production. (There can only be a 'cost' to production if people changing their activity *adds* to this cost of production somehow by being *disruptive* of the production process. This is why mass industrial labor strikes are so effective for the proletariat, because its labor in the factory is highly leveraged and depended-on.)No disagreement here.

Have you read John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism? What I'm describing is basically the theory of utilitarianism, although I think JSM did not anticipate that one day corporations/businesses would be more powerful than governments, and some of the conclusions he makes regarding capitalism reflects that. However, the overall theory of utilitarianism is not effected by these criticisms and I highly recommend reading the book - it's a short read and could be finished in a day.

Old Mole

15th May 2011, 18:19

Technocrat

17th May 2011, 01:06

Could someone explain what technology "for its own sake" is supposed to mean? In my opinion all technology that has ever been created has been created by humans to serve the purposes of the inventor. So there can only be more or less useful technology since it can only serve bigger or smaller portions of society. No technology currently used is useless to everyone (I think it´s important to note that the usefulness of that or the other technology is historically determinated).

My apologies if this has already been said, I have read the thread somewhat sloppy.

This has been addressed if you re-read the thread carefully. :)

It basically comes back to the utilitarian principle of the "greatest good for the greatest number." Sure, my flying car might be extremely useful from a personal standpoint, but the cost involved with production (ie the cost to society) would most likely outweigh the benefit. This is especially true if we consider that the function provided by the flying car (ie transportation) can be accomplished in a much more efficient way (ie at a lower cost). For example, if all cities were designed so that everything one needed was within a 5 minute walk of one's house, there would be almost no need for motorized transportation. In such a case, the production of cars would yield little if any positive utility for society, but would still represent a significant cost to society in terms of resources and labor (not to mention the cost of urban sprawl, smog, traffic accidents, etc).