Frankly, the whole thread reads a bit surreal to me, to the point where I wonder if my English...
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 06:54:52PM +0100, Dave Long wrote: On some other day, Someone Else wrote: > >"We are human beings, not human doings". This may be very deep and wise and yet I happen to have other opinion on this: those who do not do might as well cease to be and nobody would be able to tell the difference. We are perfectly described by our doings, including acts of thinking and acts of having opinions (thus, a consciousness is defined by some "internal acts", which might also manifest in the outside world). As of "kind technology", this is exactly a connection of words that wants to revolt my stomach. I put great value in useful technology, also in predictable one, and have great respect to those who can design it. "Kind", however, is not in my dictionary for such context. I would rather not hear torpedo boat or meat grinder declare love towards me. Of course, if this is what some people desire, it is their choice. My desire is to have screwdriver that does a job and does not ask me stupid questions. Or any questions at all, actually. > Thinking along these lines, and taking kindness to involve a > recognition of the human- (or living-)beingness of another, I might > attempt to argue that technology can be supple[0], but only > individuals[1] could be kind to each other ... or is this just a > luddite position? "Luddite" as opponent of technological progress? Where progress is defined as technological regress, such as stupid-smart devices prevent everybody from doing anything useful. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:[email protected] **
