Design Ethics¶
Info
FACULTY: Ariel Guersenzvaig
CALENDAR: 16-04 → 23-04
TRACK: Reflection
Some Context¶
Technology is kind of everpresent but the perception of it is not. Technosphere: extends the concept of biosphere, the technological context is almost impossible to avoid. Technologies are a materialization of the values a society upholds. Technologies and science have different origins, we have science because we had technologies, because technologies came before.
Two different visions of technology: - Technological neutrality: technology can be used for good/bad intentions, but it’s not neutral by itself. - Technological determinism: depending on the main technology the society has, the rest will follow that. defining technology as one of the main drivers of change.
Technology change us but not completely, it also depends on us. but also the technology itself influences this. That’s why technology assumes a mediating role.
Hermeneutic relation: read the world through technology and then decode and interpret.
Reflections¶
This seminar brought back some reflections on which I had been pondering regarding the role of technology in my life and my interactions with society. In particular, the stimulus came from the nausea I felt from continuously hearing phrases like “that’s the direction we’re headed”, “that’s how technology will be”, “this is the future”. Especially, these phrases are uttered when pointing out the ethical, political, social, and ecological risks associated with certain technological events. Over time, these seemingly certain and immediate phrases have caused me a sort of visceral discomfort and a very basic question: who decided this?
Yes, who decided that this was the right way to “progress” humanity? Was it the technology? Or the people behind it? Who decided that colonizing Mars was a priority? I did not.
And then, why is it so immediate in the collective imagination to think that huge resources are being spent to implant chips in the human mind? And why is it so absurd to think of investing the same amount of resources to study our environment and make more conscious choices towards it?
Both scenarios pose obstacles and ethical questions, but while it seems inevitable that the future will go in that direction, few seem to believe in concrete alternatives. Yet the price we pay to have what we have and want is so high: the tens of thousands of kilometers of cables that connect continents are just one example, as are the mines that exploit cheap child labor for our devices, and the reduction of global biodiversity.
It would be inconsistent to that I don’t benefit from these choices: thanks to these innovations, I have had the opportunity to discover the world and reach the point of criticality I am at right now. To me it’s important to focus on the price that is paid, because otherwise, by running blindly into the void, the chances of hitting a wall are high. That’s why I never fully agree with those who support this narrative without batting an eye, who blindly trust technological progress, and don’t even try to imagine alternatives. Because without imagination, we are destined to remain on the margins of this reality, consenting to something we have not consciously chosen.
Do we really want to leave the responsibility of carrying forward these collective choices to a small number of people?
The seminar offered me some clarity on this topic. I greatly appreciated the definition of technological neutrality and determinism, as they helped me better conceptualize these different visions. Additionally, I confirmed that at the heart of these debates, there is a strong cultural and social matrix: I am convinced that many issues that seem exclusively linked to the technological scenario actually arise from cultural and social formation, which eventually influences our use and interpretation of the technologies themselves.