Right, fair enough. Definitely a definitional difference then; that’s specifically the use of a particular meaning of the word kind. Kind doesn’t need this active component you mention—a deed can be kind, or kind regards, as can climate or detergent <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kind#source-ced2>, kind on your hands. It does however come from “kin” and that leads more into whether you wish to have a kinship with your technology. Considering how much time we spent with technology, I think there is a strange kinship we already have.
To that end, it is the designers, the people, that are actively considerate, but the medium through which they express their kindness is to instil those values into the ways in which technology works. How active that kindness will be in the long run as machines make more decisions themselves is a continuing problem—the Asimov-esque question, is it kinder to confine you to your house so you are not harmed by the outside world…? That decision though, will not come from technology directly, but from the values we give technology when making it. It is more a utilitarian argument that political oppression for a positive end goal is an acceptable stance. Either we believe oppression is a tool, and we trust that all humans will use it kindly for good. Or we design technology that is inherently kinder, that is harder to be misused. Both humans and technology have the potential to be unkind, but by ideally we only control one. For an example, the automobile was designed without safety features as simple as seatbelts and crumple zones. Early lobbyists for the auto industry fought off safety research because they believed cars were inherently dangerous and was simply what the tool was. “Cars don’t kill people, drivers do.” We’ve since been able to improve the technology itself to be kinder to the human body, even if the human driver and the crash speed is much worse. That is instilling the value of human life into the way a car reacts to an impact; I’d say that’s kind technology. On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:12 AM Tomasz Rola <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:40:06AM +0000, Ashim D'Silva wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > 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… > > This may be a fighting over words, but words have meanings. And "kind" > includes the part which means "actively care". I do not want things to > "actively care" for me, because if they were so "active" and on their > own, then maybe one day they would decide to "actively hate" me, based > on some unclear algorithm. > > I want _people_ to be kind towards other people and design screwdriver > which is usable and accessible by people with arthritis etc. I want > _people_ to be actively caring for other poeple's needs. I do not want > to make _things_ to be responsible for wellbeing of other people, this > responsibility should be taken by the people, for the people. > > I think we should be very careful when wording our wishes. And I find > usage of "kind" for describing "technology" to be extremely > disturbing. "Kindness" is not technology's task. Technology's task is > to help solve a problem. Technology can be designed and built to help > people with the problem, because some designer-builder is kind. A > person. In a future, there may be an artificial person, whoose caring > I may accept (if it chooses to offer it), but I insist that this must > be a person. Intelligent being. My equal. Not a car, phone or whatnot, > which is equal to an insect, in best case. > > I do not want "kind cities". I want a city with lots of green areas, > designed - if possible - in such way that majority of daily matters > can be done by going on foot or by short (up to 10 minutes) commute > with city transport. With houses built in such patterns, that wind can > blow out smog. The "kind city" smells like city-sized prison to me. > > And I do not want "kind English", or any other "kind language". The > language has a function, which is (mostly, I think) describing the > world and allowing mind to be put into more durable medium, be it clay > tablet or magnetic tape. Words maybe hurt sometimes but they can > hardly kill. Those who choose their language to be "kind" over > "honest" are idiots. > > So, I would like people to be kind enough towards future people and > pay huge attention about what words we are using. I think it is better > to get one thing and be 100% content rather than to get two things and > be 50% content. It is not the same, because this other, unwanted thing > will keep stinging people for the rest of their days. > > -- > 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
