Technology is the sum of a being's (or group of beings') useful artificial creations and the underlying empirical theories behind such creations. The bronze age was called "bronze" because humans had developed a technology that included the ability and know-how to smelt copper and tin together to make bronze.
Some people are afraid of technology and seek to thwart or delay it. Others embrace technology in a way that is unethical. It could easily be said that humans are still not advanced enough, as a species, to responsibly utilize nuclear fission. When the technology of any particular group of beings is well beyond their capacity to understand it fully, they will stand the possibility of annihillation in the use of such power.
Technology is neither good nor bad in itself but can lead to beneficial or negative consequences depending on how it is used. Being an American, technology has recently been employed so that all or most domestic and international phone conversations and emails are read by computers and stored for potential later use.
This could certainly root out existential threats to a government but it also subverts our concept of privacy and allows for the possibility that other forces, in the government or in the private sector, could use the information for unjust ends.
Also, the slippery slope of using technology for one stated purpose while also, covertly, using it for another exists. I have no doubt that somewhere, somehow, all digital information across all nations is being stored as a means of national security.
This should not stop us from the exchange of information that includes directives for non-cooperation, peaceful unionization, and other non-violent forms of dissent. All governments can be changed peacefully and internally with time and persistence.
I do not see that the genetic engineering of food is necessarily a bad thing but its misuse could potentially be disaterous if some feature of a genetically engineered crop hurt those who ingested it or other vegetation. Careful and cautious use of genetic engineering is critical and we should not trust corporations like Dow or Monsanto when they tell us something is safe.
The internet has provided for more free access to information than ever before in human history. It would certainly be nice if more academic and instructional information were freely available. We are on our way to a world in which an adept and dedicated student can independently learn anything humans have discovered or studied.
I greatly applaud any thinker or author who has made public their work. But, I understand the impulse to not do such things when monetary gain could be compromised by doing so. In a world where money means survival, I can sympathize and agree with the impulse to see ideas as property.
That being said, plagarism (such as that of Maureen Dowd of the New York Times) should be punished but should not be career ending if it is isolated or potentially some form of mistake. In her case, I think, it was isolated laziness. But, putting your name on someone else's book or essay or song or painting or scientific idea that you simply stole, is outright theft and should be seen as such.
One day, humans will be capable of creating artificial minds that control artificial bodies. Whether we use these intelligences for war or the benefit of humankind is up to our descendants.
I have been criticized for not understanding the central theme of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and I agree that our technology may destroy us. But, it could also save us from an asteroid or other natural disasters. It sets us up for nuclear armageddon and it cures cancer. It desensitizes us and removes us from social norms of the past yet it can let us travel through space and time. Is it natural for a human to brush his or her teeth? At what point is technology dangerous and at what point is it useful?
Can a video game be a good, occassional escape for some and addictingly bad for others? Anything can be addictive but would we chastize a young chess prodigy for being obsessed with becoming a grand-master? What is the real difference? Is it more productive to play more challenging games? Is it something about playing with real objects and people as opposed to the people on the computer or the computer itself? If it is about getting outside and being physically active, then I agree completely.
We must attempt to meet real people and do real things in the world not just of the computer in order that we don't become addicted to it. But, should we be so worried about someone who spends all their time writing on the computer, whether it be fiction or philosophy? Nothing in excess is good and balance is a concept that, if used more, would keep us from the extremes of philosophy or politics or anything else.
I think it is good to be in nature that has not been manipulated by man but we need not think that the environments man has created can not sustainably keep us in a condition that is worth being in. It may be a different aesthic to live in Manhattan, but we can still go to central park and take trips to the country. I do not think we should turn the whole world into concrete and asphalt and, in fact, I would be happy if we stopped building more all togehter.
It is perfectly reasonable to think we should halt all further construction outward, but only improve the existing city scapes and build up, if need be. We need natural land and we need natural land protections that include strict guidelines. I do not see a problem with renewable forests being planted for lumber, but we must maintain the forests we have not yet destroyed and we should plant more forests that can grow old and we should buy land from farmers in poor countries and protect it legally.
The genie, I do not think, can ever be put back in the bottle and we must work to have a rigorous ethical understanding of a particular technology. No one can deny that solar power is not a threat to the world like nuclear power is. Should we attempt to abandon all of it?
I think the world population is about as large as we would want it and, I would hope, in a world where there are limited resources, we make every attempt to have only as many children as can replace us. This is one reason we must fight religious beliefs that the world is infinite and we can have a dozen or more children.
I would exempt natural multiple births from these suggestions (and they are only suggestions, but the world may be a bad place by the time it becomes necessary to make laws) in cases where there was no knowledge of the number early on. I think, even in China, they do this. But, I do not encourage fertilization of more than one embryo at a time in cases of artificial conditions being used.
The unabomber, Ted Kazinski, was certainly against technology but I wonder what kind of bombs he would have made without it? If you hate the world humans have made and are experimenting with, then go live in the woods (while there still are some woods left). But, please don't send any packages. Use free speech first and, if you intend to do violence, then please, do violence to yourself, far away from everyone else, and leave the rest of us alone.
If there was a single technology I would suggest we invest all of our time and money in, it would be fusion. If we can't get it to output more than its input, then so be it. But, we should try because it has (a) no waste and (b) almost unlimited power with (c) almost no fuel. Maybe fusion could be weaponized, but a world movement to ban such uses should be made. It is more difficult to imagine fusion as a weapon, but it is possible, and it could be used to power lasers.
Technology and the deconstruction of the human mind through the sciences is seen by many as creating a nihilism throughout humanity. I say nonsense. Technology is perhaps our most advanced art form and we must be aware of its dangers. But, the possibilities are limitless and they need not be such dark and ominous possibilities if we can use it responsibly.
Look how the internet threatens unjust power. No more censors for the west and let the corrupt and unjust governments try to stop information that comes in from every possible direction. On phones, on PDAs, on computers, through satellites, people can get information because there are more ways to tap into it than to block it. Look how this technology that we think can control us sets us free.
Understanding every facet of our empirical being does not, in any way, influence our ability to see ourselves as unique and worthy beings. Empirical research can depress us if we are scientific realists but I see no reason to ever be a scientific realist.
Without technology, I would not have survived my pyloric stenosis as an infant. Without technology, my wife and her natural triplet pregnancy would have likely ended in the death of all of them. Without technology, our lives are much more subject to the whim of causes we can not control. Without technology, we could not share so much.
I would be for a worldwide project to buy city land, turn it into greenspace, and, on it, build efficient structures for the displaced people to live. They could be given the same space they once had, but only, in the process, relinquish some 80% of the land to greenspace.
