Tag Archives: dignity of the human person

The Proper Use of Technology: Knowledge vs. Love

The development and use of technology should be founded upon a philosophy which not only agrees with the findings of science and known facts about man, but also helps to explain them. The Gnostic philosophy that underlies the technocratic goals for technological advancement sees man as a mere pattern of information, destined in the near future to build a machine that will surpass the human pattern, allowing the next step in the chain of evolution to occur. This philosophy fails because it ignores any attempt to explain man’s origin, rejects love, the mystery of suffering, and substitutionary redemption, and focuses on controlling life and the world through knowledge. Love appears too insecure a foundation because it is not absolutely certain, and makes the person absolutely dependent. To the Gnostic technocrat, this dependence is burdensome, and only by attempting to achieve god-like power and skill to create a new world can “salvation” be attained. On the other hand, the Christian philosophy sees man as being created by God in His own image and likeness. This philosophy succeeds because it not only gives a description of the origin of man, but also allows for the very rational scientific progress upon which the technocrats attempt to base their philosophy. Man, because he is created, is dependent, but this dependence takes the form of love that essentially says, “I want you to be.” This kind of love transforms dependence into freedom. The attempt to remove man’s inherent dependence rejects the love that brought him into existence and the freedom which that love gives him. The fact of creation also gives man the end of achieve union with his Creator, which means that he will become God-like through the love of God. Technology, therefore,would be better developed and used if it helped man achieve his final end as stated by the Christian philosophy.



The Proper Use of Technology: Luddites

In the final argument of Joseph Ratzinger from the last post, many people might start claiming that technology is evil. The fact that technology seems to lead to a breakdown in man’s moral nature and a push toward totalitarian control often leads some people to the conclusion that technology should be either rejected or treated as a necessary evil. This rejection is present in certain segments of the environmentalist movement and is often seen in the push for organic foods. This rejection and resentment of technology, however, eventually becomes a resentment against humans and especially human freedom since that freedom allowed the development of technology. This resentment often leads to the idea that man is diseased by his mind and its freedom. But the view of man as presented earlier by Joseph Ratzinger, sees this rejection of man’s reason as another way of denying man’s nature. Technology, as it is not man’s salvation nor man’s bane, and yet can be used for either, must be a mere tool which man uses. This means that technology does not form it’s own philosophy, but rather it is philosophy that determines the development and use of technology.

The next post will conclude this series of posts, and will examine which philosophical foundation the development and proper use of technology should be based.

The Proper Use of Technology: The Evolution of Technology and The End of Man

The technocrats, in order to help bolster their arguments that man is a machine, turn to the history of technological development and not only compare it to but say it is a part of Evolution. One such technocrat is Ray Kurzweil, inventor of the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first text-to-speech synthesizer, and the first music synthesizer to faithfully recreate several orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition software and recipient of the MIT-Lemelson Prize and the National Medal of Technology. In his book The Singularity is NearRay Kurzweil argues that Evolution demonstrates a law of this particular universe “The law of accelerating returns,” that is, that lasting or meaningful patterns develop into better meaningful patterns at an exponential rate and that the end of Evolution is universal intelligence. He then place man as a key component of Evolution as being the first meaningful pattern that both recognizes and analyzes meaningful patterns. For Kurzweil, Man’s drive to develop technology arises from the evolutionary urge to develop better meaningful patterns and that Man, because he is hingepin upon which the rise of a better meaningful pattern, will eventually merge with that better pattern, just as single cell organisms merged to become multi-cellular organisms. This will happen since, according to Kurzweil, reality is purely composed of meaningful patterns of information.

This view of reality and man’s nature denies that man’s dignity comes from his moral and spiritual nature, but rather from the fact that each man is a meaningful, though flawed unique pattern information. Man is trapped in his biological limitations and must discover some way to allow his unique pattern to overcome those limitations. Looking at the power of computers in storing information, and the improving algorithms that allow computers to form meaningful patterns from that data, Kurzweil states that if man, as the highest product of biological evolution is to overcome his biologically imposed limitations and continue to evolve, then he must take on those powers of the computer. All claims of morality and spirituality are merely the manifestation of the evolutionary urge to seek greater intelligence, all desire for salvation is a desire to become a flawless meaningful pattern of information. thus, seeking to accomplish that evolutionary urge by freeing and perfecting man’s intelligence from the severe limitations of its biological form can be regarded as an essentially spiritual undertaking.

Kurzweil does not stop here. He then states that since evolution is inevitable, all attempts to stop the merging of man and machine will come to naught as those who have embraced this next phase of evolution will leave behind those who refuse to join. Man must seek this next step relentlessly, according to Kurzweil, for once the human pattern can be copied or stored, it will be possible to prevent each unique human pattern from ceasing to exist. Also, since the pattern of human consciousness would be understood, those limitations which cause suffering, disease, and death could be overcome. Any attempt  to hold back this evolutionary step would result in the unnecessary continued suffering and death of millions of human beings.

This is the argument of the technocrats for man and his relation to technology. My next post will be concerning another side of the argument, the side held by Joseph Ratzinger who wants to maintain man’s dignity, seemingly in spite of the development of technology.


The Proper Use of Technology: They call themselves Technocrats

After watching the Eyeborg Documentary,  I thought, as probably many who watched this video, that technology is a wonderful tool. Just look at those disabled people and how robotic prosthetics have allowed them to live nearly normal lives and look at the lives we will save with tools like the fireman’s heads-up-display(HUD). How could such technology threaten us with the loss of our human dignity?

Looking at the video again, we see that these prosthetic technologies are ever more closely imitating and more closely integrating into the human body. Because of this fact, the idea of merging man and machine, to the point of being unable to distinguish man from machine, becomes tenable. From this idea naturally springs the question of whether man is a machine.

Those who hold that technology proves man is a machine and applaud and encourage the use of technology as shown in the Eyeborg documentary often call themselves technocrats. They defend their claim using known facts of human biology, modern technology and the history of technological development. With robotic prosthetics, they point to functioning non-biological limbs and organs replacing non-functioning or improperly functioning biological ones. With the brain-machine interface, they point to how we observe how the world is perceived through the biological and non-biological systems and these perceptions can be manipulated much like information is manipulated in a computer. Because the mind can be effected through the manipulation of the brain, technocrats claim that the mind is caused by the function of the brain.

At this point, the technocrat turns from the facts of human biology and modern technology to the history of technological development. The examination of this section of the argument will happen my next post.

The Proper Use of Technology: History

Throughout written history, primitive and technologically stagnant civilizations slavishly hold superstitious beliefs and practices while advanced and technologically dynamic civilizations cast aside such superstitions as irrational or unnecessary. When an advanced civilization meets a primitive civilization, conflict often arises, as the primitive civilization rejects the technologically enhanced knowledge of the advanced civilization as some false or disordered superstition. The Jesuits report a conflict of this kind in their relations written during the French Colonization of Canada between 1617 and 1791. Desiring to spread the Catholic faith and learn more about the American Indians, the Jesuits found themselves in direct conflict with the Indian medicine men during an outbreak of those European diseases to which the Indians were extremely susceptible. The medicine-men used lies and tricks to maintain or increase control over the tribe during these outbreaks and the Jesuits often stepped in to stop the ridiculous ceremonies in order to administer real treatment and prove the claims of the medicine-men false. In one account, a Jesuit tried to give orders for the treatment of an Indian child suffering from a fever.  The medicine-man who was present said, “That is very good for you people but, for us, it is thus that we cure our sick” and proceeded to beat a tambourine and blow all over the child’s body. The parents of the child, however, took into account the priest’s recommendations and, upon the child’s recovery, came and thanked him for his help Using more advanced medical treatments, the Jesuits discounted the superstitions on which the power and control of the medicine-men relied, weakening and embittering them. As seen in this account, technological advance led to the rejection of superstition. However, as superstitions fall by the wayside, an increasingly compelling current of thought forms that all things spiritual, including those which are truly moral and holy, are irrational and only that which can be corroborated through scientific experiment or computation is reasonable. This current of thought questions that very existence of man’s moral dignity which Joseph Ratzinger warns must be defended. Is Ratzinger right in his warning, or is he a medicine-man whom technology will eventually prove wrong?

In the next few blog posts, I will first examine recent technological advances and their possible consequences on the human person, then I will examine whether Ratzinger is a medicine-man who is behind the times or whether he is a prophet seeking to save man from enslaving himself to technology, and finally I will examine some of the consequences that follow from this conclusion.

The Proper Use of Technology: Prologue

This is the first post in a series concerning the proper use of technology and is meant to act as a threshing floor for my Bachelor of Arts thesis. I was inspired to write about this topic from a homily, given by Cardinal Ratzinger at Regensburg and published in the book “In the Beginning….”: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, concerning the Catholic understanding of the nature of man. In that homily, Benedict said “The fate of all of us depends on whether this moral dignity of the human person can be defended in the world of technology, with all its possibilities.” This statement has inspired me to explore how the dignity of the human person – that he is made in the image and likeness of God – could be defended in our age. Of course, the “world of technology”  is much too large to be properly covered in a Bachelor thesis, so I have decided to limit the scope strictly to electro-mechanical augmentations, such as prosthetic limbs, artificial eyes, and brain interfaces. (Yes, they all exist.)

In my next post, I plan on giving a little historical background as well as a little bit of the structure that my paper will be taking. Until next time!