> > > > 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). >
If your definition of do is broad enough, this becomes simply a semantic stance. “Be” simply opens up the definition of a person to include beliefs and dreams; things they want to do, or would like to learn how to do. If you include that in what you call “internal acts”, it’s just words. However, the question “what do you do?” often does not imply a request for those discussions. > > 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. > Kind technology again might be a semantic concern. Your screwdriver does not need to ask you how your day’s going. But a kind screwdriver might be one with a grip developed for weaker grip strength, or people with arthritis or carpal tunnel. The most efficient screwdriver might not be that useful if you can’t grip it firmly and designing for a rarer use case can be “kind”. Steve Jobs’ “You’re holding it wrong” comes to mind… Opposition to the word “kind” might instead be “inclusive” like Jayadevan mentioned. But Harnidh’s original question was simply: changes to existing technology that serves vulnerable populations. > > > 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. > God I detest “smart” TVs that take forever to boot, and have the potential to be hacked and used as pawns in DDoS botnets. Happy to be a luddite there. > -- > 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] ** > > -- Cheerio, Ashim D’Silva Design & build www.therandomlines.com instagram.com/randomlies
