🐰 Down The Rabbit Hole 🕳️

“Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at.”

~ Henry David Thoreau, Walden

---------------------------------------

{If you'd prefer to listen to/watch the following message you can do so here.}

Greetings!

How do we decide whether or not to adopt a new technology? What criteria do we use when we encounter a new product, new service, or a new way of doing or thinking about something? Unfortunately, many of us do not have clear criteria and so we do not have the necessary filters for making decisions influenced by our worldview. Our first quote from Jacques Ellul addresses this issue…here’s the quote:

“The first great fact which emerges from our civilization is that today everything has become ‘means.’ There is no longer an ‘end’; we do not know whither we are going. We have forgotten our collective ends, and we possess great means: we set huge machines in motion in order to arrive nowhere.”

~ Jacques Ellul

It is often the case that in order to properly understand what is going on, one must pull back a bit to get a better perspective. When one looks at the development of technology from something akin to a birds-eye-view, it’s remarkable to note that there is, in fact, no real rhyme or reason to its development. This would be less noteworthy if the effects of technology on culture were not so profound. The truth is that our technological culture resembles a runaway train with no conductor driving it.

Why is this? Technology is the handmaid of science, so shouldn’t science provide some kind of a backstop? Although there have been attempts at developing a certain ethics around science, in practice for science nothing is sacred and therefore nearly everything is lawful. Capitalism can be considered technology’s handmaid, and unfortunately, as with science, for capitalism there is no real ethics; if there is a market for something, this is enough of an impetus to create it. In trying to discern human-centric technology we should, therefore, expect little help from science, politics, economics, or nearly any of the other domains of modern life. It is, finally, only philosophy and theology that can speak properly to the question of a human-centric technology.

In order to address Ellul’s concern, that “we do not know whither we are going. We have forgotten our collective ends,” we need to address the questions: What are people for? What is the purpose of human life? What does human flourishing look like? These are questions that require a great deal of attention, and we will certainly address them repeatedly here at You Are Not A Machine.

A good place to begin to get a better perspective is to look within oneself. To what extent does “Trust the Science” reflect our worldview? My goal is not to undermine one’s trust in science, but simply to ask the question: is our attitude towards science balanced? This, of course, is impossible to say precisely but, as with anything that pertains to flawed humans, one should always retain a healthy skepticism. “Trust the science” suggests a certain infallibility in science, an infallibility that real scientists do not actually claim, and in so doing, it also somewhat deifies science. It’s also worth pointing out that even those of us who say we are skeptical about science still live our lives very much with faith in science.

One of the great problems with “Trust the Science,” of course is that science has nothing to say when it comes to answering the existential questions we posed above: what is the purpose of all of this? This is the question that needs to be answered if we are to have any success in wrenching back control of our lives from the Machine.

If not consciously, then at least subconsciously, most of us begin with an implicit, “Trust the Science,” and end with an explicit (and often unexamined) acceptance of science’s technological fruits. We have become a culture addicted to gadgets, convenience, and comfort, while deep down we have a great unease about who is driving the train.

Ellul would like us to consider what “ends” we should be pursuing. If it feels as though our lives are out of control, it is likely because we don’t have a good sense of where we are (and should be) going. Again, we will certainly be returning to the question of “ends” here on You Are Not a Machine…so please stay tuned!

Ok…that’s it for today. I hope you enjoyed this foray into the work of Jacques Ellul…as always, stay tuned for more…and I will see you soon!

Warmly,

Herman

PS: ICYMI...You Are Not A Machine is hear to stay...but...I am working on an adjacent project called Gadfly Academy. I will be sharing more about this new endeavor soon!

PPS: Enjoying this newsletter? If so, please share it with a friend!