Technology our savior?

[Thanatos]

Our biological instincts are the result of a slow, evolutionary process - it is hard to overcome them using will. My rationalism has recent evolutionary origins, whereas the animal instinct is much older; the former overcoming the latter is not easy.

We therefore need an external means. Is technology our savior, then? If so, wouldn't socialism come about eventually (capitalism, even within a limited framework, may give birth to more and more hi-tech, which in turn may result in socialism)?

[TC]

All technologies amount to tools. The social effects of new technologies depend on the particular technologies in question, and crucially, *who controls them*. The same technology in one set of hands might liberate society that, if in another's hands, might entrench oppression until the end of our species. The future isn't written and history is contingent on the actions of real people as constrained by the material reality in which they find themselves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Our biological instincts are the result of a slow, evolutionary process - it is hard to overcome them using will.What biological instincts need to be overcome? Why?


My rationalism has recent evolutionary origins, whereas the animal instinct is much older; the former overcoming the latter is not easy.What do you mean by your rationalism? Do you mean some philosophical or logical outlook? Humans seem to always have had the ability to concieve of things that are only possible: to imagine a possible result of their labor before they attempt to create what they intend to create; to imagine possible outcomes of differnet situations. If recent people have come up with frameworks and ways to rationalize this process, to develop scientific rather than trial and error ways of figuring out things, it's just a development or an outgrowth of that human ability I think.


We therefore need an external means. Is technology our savior, then? If so, wouldn't socialism come about eventually (capitalism, even within a limited framework, may give birth to more and more hi-tech, which in turn may result in socialism)?In my view, the industrial revolution and the technologies and increase in productive abilities (each laborer being able to create far more than they could consume) that are connected to it created the potential for socialism. But technology is not used or developed neutrally in Capitalism. The science behind it might strive for objectivity, but the application is always within the framework of existing society. So capitalists develop labor saving technology not to create ease of labor or reduce the workload necissary for abundance, but to de-skill laborers and make labor cheaper; creating more wealth (for them) and more poverty (for the now de-skilled and interchangable workers) at the same time.

Technology could put new strains on the contradictions of the system, but it can't overcome the system because capitalism is human relations and technology has no intent or will of its own. Only people can repurpose their society's basic programming, right now.

[Naroc]

What biological instincts need to be overcome? Why?

What do you mean by your rationalism? Do you mean some philosophical or logical outlook? Humans seem to always have had the ability to concieve of things that are only possible: to imagine a possible result of their labor before they attempt to create what they intend to create; to imagine possible outcomes of differnet situations. If recent people have come up with frameworks and ways to rationalize this process, to develop scientific rather than trial and error ways of figuring out things, it's just a development or an outgrowth of that human ability I think.

In my view, the industrial revolution and the technologies and increase in productive abilities (each laborer being able to create far more than they could consume) that are connected to it created the potential for socialism. But technology is not used or developed neutrally in Capitalism. The science behind it might strive for objectivity, but the application is always within the framework of existing society. So capitalists develop labor saving technology not to create ease of labor or reduce the workload necissary for abundance, but to de-skill laborers and make labor cheaper; creating more wealth (for them) and more poverty (for the now de-skilled and interchangable workers) at the same time.

Technology could put new strains on the contradictions of the system, but it can't overcome the system because capitalism is human relations and technology has no intent or will of its own. Only people can repurpose their society's basic programming, right now.
That's what i think as well. In our current system, it doesn't really effect the "status of the revolution" or brings it further. Technological advance will be very helpful (not to say that it isn't right now) as soon as a new society has established itself. The mainpoint is: At the moment, technological advance is helping the capitalists to make labor cheaper, as it was said before. Only in a socialist or communist society all of the benefits of new technology will be support to the people and not to the bank accounts of company bosses.

[Thanatos]

All technologies amount to tools. The social effects of new technologies depend on the particular technologies in question, and crucially, *who controls them*. The same technology in one set of hands might liberate society that, if in another's hands, might entrench oppression until the end of our species. The future isn't written and history is contingent on the actions of real people as constrained by the material reality in which they find themselves.

I am aware that even good things in the wrong hands would be harmful to people at large. That's a given. But I wonder whether progress will be made DESPITE this, whether mistakes will be self-correcting (and therefore beneficial to humanity on the whole).

For instance, let's say a certain hi-tech tool has been invented for profit, and not for the welfare of people - this may be the case, initially, but as time progresses the profit motive may disappear and that tool may instead become commonplace and everybody may have access to it. If you keep extending this to the future (where, hopefully, production processes are made easier by more technology), then wouldn't workers benefit despite the system?

[NoXiOuScRaSh]

For instance, let's say a certain hi-tech tool has been invented for profit, and not for the welfare of people - this may be the case, initially, but as time progresses the profit motive may disappear and that tool may instead become commonplace and everybody may have access to it. If you keep extending this to the future (where, hopefully, production processes are made easier by more technology), then wouldn't workers benefit despite the system?


Maybe in the long haul but even if we are looking to a future where they would be beneficial the real problem would be how much damage would it cause now, would there future benefit be even possible after the damage they have caused in capitalist hands?

[Pawn Power]

Technology has appeared to play the opposite role quite often. Most technology that people interact with on a daily basis has been propagated to make someone else money, usually by taking yours, or your data, time, etc.

I can't even call my bank any more and have a real person who is paid wage do something for me. Now, I must go online and spend my own time using their website to do my own bank administration. We are paying someone else to provide ourselves with a service-- think self-check out, most online tools, et al.

[Loony Le Fist]

Technology is only our savior if that is how it is employed. Otherwise it very well may be our downfall.

[ckaihatsu]

I find many parallels between our present time and that of the initial emergence of European cities (which allowed escape from feudal lands) -- these days one can "escape" one's immediate surroundings, to use the net on whatever device, no matter where one is geographically. (And if one uses digital devices for extra, non-communication purposes, then all the better.)





The importance of what happened in the countryside between about 1000 and 1300 is all too easily underrated by those of us for whom food is something we buy from supermarkets. A doubling of the amount of food produced by each peasant household transformed the possibilities for human life across Europe. Whoever controlled the extra food could exchange it for the goods carried by the travelling traders or produced by the artisans.

Crudely, grain could be changed into silk for the lord’s family, iron for his weapons, furnishing for his castle, wine and spices to complement his meal. It could also be turned into means that would further increase the productivity of the peasant cultivators—wooden ploughs with iron tips, knives, sickles, and, in some cases, horses with bridles, bits and iron shoes.

By supplying such things at regular markets the humble bagman could transform himself into a respectable trader, and the respectable trader into a wealthy merchant. Towns began to revive as craftsmen and traders settled in them, erecting shops and workshops around the castles and churches. Trading networks grew up which tied formerly isolated villages together around expanding towns and influenced the way of life in a wide area.101 To obtain money to buy luxuries and arms, lords would encourage serfs to produce cash crops and substitute money rents for labour services or goods in kind. Some found an extra source of income from the dues they could charge traders for allowing markets on their land.

Life in the towns was very different from life in the countryside. The traders and artisans were free individuals not directly under the power of any lord. There was a German saying, ‘Town air makes you free.’ The urban classes were increasingly loath to accept the prerogatives of the lordly class. Traders and artisans who needed extra labour would welcome serfs who had fled bondage on nearby estates. And as the towns grew in size and wealth they acquired the means to defend their independence and freedom, building walls and arming urban militias.




Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 144





My pet theory right now is that current conditions are similar to those of the 'Dark Ages', in that both are about endless stagnation with nothing but uncertainty on the horizon of civilization. The *upside*, though, as the text notes, is that better techniques, introduced from the outside -- computers, especially, for today -- became commonly available and increased the amount of utility for the average person.

[...]