You started an interesting discussion @Jon! And @afuchs gave it a cool twist.
So we have “Who does technology think we are?” --> “Who do we think technology is?”
In another topic there was the statement ‘Technology is never neutral’. I would like to bring nuance to that statement by saying: The science behind the technology is (mostly) neutral, but the application of the technology is (most often) not.
@afuchs makes the important statement “So who is responsible?”, but given that this kind of technology application is so widespread we should better ask “So what is responsible?”.
The breakdown @Jon provides - while valid - still doesn’t cut to the core. The Specification and Interface/interaction aspects are at the level of product design - they are late in the decision process, so are not the reason. Business model is mentioned very often as the thing that leads to wrong, unethical technology applications. But this also doesn’t cut it, because “Why choose a particular business model?”.
Root cause
I think a small root-cause analysis is in order (I’ll make some quick jumps, the gist is important, but a proper fishbone analysis would be interesting):
- A company releases a product that is not aligned with humanity’s best interests - Why?
- The product is developed to be viable in current market environment with the hightest, quickest ROI - Why?
- The competition will jump into any opportunity you leave untouched and investors can make a quicker buck elsewhere - Why?
- Business and economy worldwide is conducted as a ‘survival of the fittest’ zero-sum game - Why?
- Nature itself is survival of the fittest and in human nature the strive for wealth and power is defined as success in this game
Note that the business model is not in this analysis. It is a side issue, and we can all find plenty examples of bad technology use in any arbitrary business model. But some models are more successful in winning than others.
This all is very much simplified, of course, but I think it reflects the essence of what we are seeing all around us. We have given rise to economic models that work really well, because they are aligned with nature… in a way.
The Problem
Our economic models are the root cause of why technology is not aligned with humanity’s best interests!
These models - letting the markets run free - have proven to be incredibly successful! The free-market thinkers are spot on when stating this. But the problem is that this pertains only to the winners of the game. And running a survival of the fittest game to its natural conclusion means there will be ever less winners, and those that are will be ever more powerful - a vicious cycle. Right now we have a huge wealth pyramid… but in a couple of years it will be more like a pushpin, with a very broad base and a very thin, high spike in the middle.
We can call this model capitalism, but this is a loaded term. Note that I am not an anti-capitalist at all. I believe in economy and markets as part of human society. It’s just the particular forms of capitalism that I am against. There are many types of the wrong kinds of capitalism: predatory capitalism, casino capitalism, disaster capitalism, surveillance capitalism, etc.
To be a winner in these kinds of systems it helps if you are prepared to walk on the edge, and break the rules if you can get away with it. And to continuously weaken the rules. Being moral and ethical will give you a disadvantage in the game.
So if you are in the oil business, it is helpful to be a climate denier and fight against the science. If someone is threatening your economic model, you call him a ‘darn commie’ and make sure that term has a truly bad connotation. Globalization is also a natural phenomenon in this game - the water flows to the lowest points - and in those places where you are threatened by globalization you opportunistically adopt protectionist policies, if only temporary. Wherever civilians - those people that are lower in the pyramid - demand their well-earned rights, you try to weaken them. Etcetera…
The Solution
We all know this is what is at play in some sense. So how do we change that?
Well, in a way, the solution is simple: Just don’t play this game! We can follow our natural instincts, but a good human trait is that we can apply civility and culture to change our ways.
This then boils down to changing our mindset, and raising awareness of the need to do that. We have to redefine what success means. Personally I have come to the insight that money and power means nothing. I’d rather be healthy and happy. If that is on a small salary, with humble possessions, then that is totally fine.
If people would adopt the same mindset en masse, then the rules can be changed and the game would be played differently.
The Way Forward
Here lies the challenge, of course, as this means a big threat to the current winners; a threat to their definition of success. So in order to succeed what is needed are alternative economic and business models that can co-exist and grow side-by-side with our current destructive capitalistic systems.
Am I making sense, or do you think I am rambling? 