This article is from Ubiquity: Volume 8, Issue 10 (March 13, 2007 - March 19, 2007)
On Oct 9, 12:17 pm, Anil Tharayath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the 20th century, with the advancement of technology as a world- > historical force, philosophers have spoken of "the end of > History" (Arnold Gehlen) and "the end of Philosophy" (Martin > Heidegger). Technological progress replaces philosophy and reflection, > and thereby accompanies the end of cosmologically oriented > Metaphysics. Although it focused itself on ecological crisis for a > short time at the end of 20th century, the 20th century was a revival > of a natural philosophy style of thinking. Also, the cultural unity of > a technological kind was threatened and is still threatened in the > current period. But the current trends are moving in an opposite > direction, and offering new meaningful thinking about culturally > embedded technology - which in turn refers to the cultural > understanding of technological development. > Since the Industrial Revolution, the idea of alternative > technological futures becomes increasingly central to plans for > technical decisions. Thus arises the more general question of the > concept for the future of technology, which we want to conceptualize > in our vision, and for that purpose a technical utopia, perhaps a > technological world-view, is necessary. Technological development in > its ambivalent form and the future of technological development > replaces the paradigm of technological progress. Also the generic > future of human beings, to which technological progress has been > directed since the Enlightenment, is an insufficiently broad concept. > It needs to be changed and integrated into a concept of Sustainable > Development. The concrete formation of human beings in its Bodily > Existence should be placed at the center of the evaluation of > technological progress. Since the Industrial Revolution, the > coincidental technological evolution with its acceleration effects is > taken over by an organizational model of projected technologies. > Most organizational theories want to limit the borders of > technologies, but not by transforming technological development. The > formulation of moral limits, which propagates the return to a new > simplicity, is the usual approach. However, one must acknowledge the > limits of moral and political fixing of boundaries. The western theory > means that alternative forms of the technologization (in other > cultures and societies) are not possible. With a cultural theory in > the background, the idea of an alternative technological future can be > developed. The economic costs of regularization have to be considered > and the conditions of the dominant economic culture have to be > questioned. Technology is always actually adapted to changing > conditions, and so alternative technologies are possible. > The compensation theory of the Geisteswissenschaften (human > sciences) by Odo Marquard goes back to the philosophical studies of > Hermann Luebbe. In addition, Joachim Ritter perceives further > scientific and technological development by the Geisteswissenschaften. > In particular, the theory maintains a compensation of history by > technology studies and natural sciences. However, preceding the > hypothesis of compensation, some inherent thinking about the > assumptions is needed; the substantiality of previous life forms could > gain back the liability with the assistance of Geisteswissenschaften. > The hypothesis of compensation keeps the myth of the two cultures > intact. During this process, the compensation of adversity of > modernization is publicized and the complementary function of the > historical culture sciences is ignored. The hypothesis of compensation > refers only to that part of the natural sciences which produces > technical-industrially used knowledge. Joachim Ritter, in his study, > gives a functionalistic analysis for the authorization of existence of > the Geisteswissenschaften by modeling the hypothesis of compensation. > Natural sciences and technology are embedded into a network of > tradition. Innovation, correspondingly, is subsequently bounded with > transformation of tradition. Technological development can be > understood as a cultural-historical process. Needs and value > conceptions resist technological development, whereas cultural > perspectives are more important than general subordinates. This kind > of resistance - however preferentially made by philosophers - is not > analytical, although it would not be uninteresting for ethical > evaluations. Also, an ethics of the technological development is not > to be understood as a compensation. The thesis of dealing with > technological knowledge and action implies also another concept of > ethics. At this juncture, ethics is not added from the outside for > technological development; rather, from the very beginning ethical > evaluation/assessment is a part of technological action. This also > changes the concepts of modernization. Technological development does > not only happen exclusively for its own sake, even if this has > sometimes appeared that way. Therefore, a new concept of modernization > is urgently needed on the national and global scale. > Cultural models are criticizing the particular technological > alternatives as inhuman or ecologically harmful and focus on adapted > or intelligent solutions. Ideas of naturalness or humanity have always > been included into a path-dependent orientation of particular > technological development. The substantial paths of individual > technology advancement results from an interaction of various selected > and limited conditions. With the dynamic of variation and > construction, particular fields of technological development, routines > of construction and paradigmatic solutions have been worked out. The > routines of construction are established in the "State of Technology." > In this respect a path dependency of technological developments > results from the practice of technology advancement. There is no > central authority which would structure the entire development. > Therefore, one has to take various contexts of structuring into > consideration, if researchers want to structure a particular frame of > conditions. > Technological action is defined as dealing with technological > practice which goes along with traditions, paths of development, > selective models. Models can be worked out in view of development > trends. Here one can speak of trends, but not of preformed > technological ideas. Though construction patterns of a technological > kind seem to be more than mere social constructions of technological > developments, technology is not arising from one single consistent > project, so it cannot be planned in advance, but is being developed > out of a gradual constitutive process. Yet neither Technology > Assessment (Technikfolgenabschätzung) nor Technology Structuring can > be done only by one single project in advance but also has to be taken > as a gradual process of constitution and reflection. Nevertheless the > openness of technological development has nothing to do with > irrationality; one can realize it and in the light of this openness > one can also act rationally. > In accordance with the cultural turn, technological development is > taken as a model for cultural development. The fitness of certain > means for certain purposes can always be estimated by success and > failure, i.e. by reaching or missing a certain purpose (goal). The > success of technological action does not have to depend on the actual > agreement of various groups, but at all times it must demonstrate > transculturally and prove its practical worth. Technical know-how has > not only the characteristics of continuation and irreversibility, but > it is also not revisable, which shows clearly a cumulative character. > In this sense, in principle the technology goes through a progress > of direction. Technological progress, as a progress of cognition and > realization, can be methodically restored as a hierarchically > structured and diversifying acting competence sufficiently developed > such that it is available for action. Philosophy reconstructs those > social practices, which imply poietic instrumental action (poesis > action) or the result of a poietic action: such as practices of > technological development and technological production, practical use > of technology and the practices in which technology must be removed > from the context of usage (including disposal, etc.). Therefore, the > main feature of these artifacts is their relict character. > A large number of decisions need to be made so that a technical > organization can run smoothly, efficiently, inconspicuously, but only > a relatively few organizations permit questions the technical > organization perceive as suggesting it is a precarious conflict-laden > business. The large and unhomogenous group of the Technics Designer is > to be structured in such a way that itself works in principle, for > which relevant differences bring ethical questions in discussion. > Technology-organizing individuals usually receive no formal training > in ethics. Different approaches to business ethics find easy access > into operational practice and are also increasingly being introduced > in industrialized countries. But compared to this, the application of > ethical reflection for entrepreneurial technological organization is > still in a very beginning phase. > Technology-organizing practical men with their needs to receive > guidance in concrete individual cases also continuously seek ethical > assistance outside of the university system. Most people who > participate in technological organizations do not have information > about those different situations in which possible ethical > consultation is already obstructed, but took part nonetheless. In each > case, the contact with rather highly deterring expenditure is > connected. Ethical criteria are an integral component of the new > modernization discussion. > Technological progress lies first within the instrumental range and > requires a pragmatic and utilitarian justification. In addition, > progress in technological action has an ethical dimension. To that > extent, pragmatic and ethical legitimacy of examination can be > differentiated methodically, but not completely be separated. The > legitimacy regarding a practice must take the limitations of tradition > and "teachability" into account. Legitimacy can only be done regarding > the uncertainty of the technology consequences and future development. > Overall, a deficit of complexity theory and the unsatisfactory > causality of prognosis make the estimation more difficult for future > developments, which however are not completely impossible. > A part of the acceptance crisis of modern technology could have to > be attributed to missing visions of technological development. People > would rather talk about the frightful visions than about positive > utopias, as they are significant for technological development. During > earlier times of technological development optimistic progress was > allowed. We are in the age of rapid technological change, of which > however individual innovations, trends and megatrends are the > characteristics. On the way toward the High Technology Civilization, > there are a whole number of emerging successes, such as automobiles of > the future, power supply innovations, high-tech medicine, and new > building materials. What is missing is a model for cross-linking and > embedding these new technologies - a vision for a coherent cultural > paradigm, which ultimately helps to prepare the acceptance. This > spells a new category of modernization, which has a new meaning. > A vision of technology is not to be confused with prognosis. It has > no prognostic features. It does not aim to predict what is likely to > occur in the future. Instead, what it does is attempt a structuring of > individual fields of technology, a security of technology and its > cross-linking, not least in the indication of a successful technical > progress (i.e. technological practice). However, it must be a practice > based on the knowledge of its basic conditions and its background > justifications. Prosperity and use were long-time legitimizing > horizons for technological practice. Today, if only at a rudimentary > level, at least successful life and a human practice is now morally, > pragmatically, strategically - or instrumentally and technologically - > judged by other criteria. This is a starting point for a better human > practice. At the same time, it represents a challenge to technicians > who are responsible for progress in the technological development and > who believe that technological working order and fulfillment is > already sufficient. I would not like to deny that the success and > failure of human practice belong as the central indicators for the > evaluation of technological practice. > Technical criteria alone are not sufficient, but cultural- > civilization models with a moral component such as sustainability or > long-term responsibility will become part of a technology reflection > culture. That culture, in order to be energized, must raise the > question of acceptance between the involved technicians. On the one > hand, engineering and economic transactions must be to be reflected, > and on the other hand specialists for the acceptability of > technologies will be needed. Communication, mobility and knowledge > regarding information must be brought together in harmony with > ecological, civilization and communicative embedding paradigms, in > order to be able to finally clarify the questions of acceptability of > technological practice. These issues must be examined in a > transdisciplinary research practice. > > About the author: > Prof. Dr. Dr. Bernhard Irrgang > Dr. Bernhard Irrgang (professor for philosophy of technology at TU > Dresden) teaches courses in philosophy of technology and ethical > hermeneutics in the Institute for Philosophy at Dresden University of > Technology Germany. He has expertise in different fields of philosophy > of technology and research on the philosophical issues and questions > of techniques and technology especially in gene technologies, cultural > theory of techniques, information technology, artificial intelligence > and expert systems, technological assessments, hermeneutical ethics > and medicine ethics. Main emphases are on: Philosophical questions and > topics concerning technique and technology; Technology and Cultural > transfer; Technical development and early technical cultures; > Technoscience research; STS research (Science, Technology and Society > studies), esp. Gene Technology, Culture theory of technique, > Information Technology/Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems; > Technological Assessment and Organisation of technology; Study of > limitations between philosophy and biology; Applied and Hermeneutics > Ethics; Technological ethics; Ecological ethics, medical ethics, > Intercultural environmental ethics. History of philosophy in 17th, > 18th, 20th century. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
