This advertising is an interesting example of the chasm between how Silicon Valley companies and their customers understand the cultural meaning of their products. It is fascinating on its own terms, but then add the context that these companies are not just wealthy, but mobilizing their wealth to project political and social power. That's quite frightening.
Illich is an old friend, though I've not picked him up in decades. Borgmann is in the "not gotten there yet" pile, so hoping you'll be writing about him sometime.
You are right on. It's not just the content of the narrative that's concerning, but the reality of the power of these companies and their power to move us in the direction they're articulated.
I think you'll enjoy Borgmann when you get a chance to read him. I wrote a bit about the device paradigm, arguably his most significant contribution to my thinking in this area last week (https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/degenerative-ai). I appreciate the way that he makes a case for the way that technology influences the way we see the world and acts in ways far more comprehensive than the simple machines we often think of.
I am very curious why you chose to articulate “I am not a techno-pessimist?”
It feels from the outside that you may be asking the very same question, as many of us are who think broadly, “Can his possibly be why we are here on earth,” and suspecting that technology may be deeply reactionary and detrimental to human-ness. So why are you resisting?
I find that antipathy toward tech these days is considered too radical, like being antenatal or wondering whether an incestuous relationship post-menopause is actually a bad thing. Our culture wants and depends on tech so much that to deny it is to risk being thought a pastoral romantic or someone simping for the “Noble Savage.”
I want to give you permission to be not ok with tech. Not that this permission has value from me, but that it has value from the human perspective. Being a deep thinker means being willing to go beneath the shibboleths, and tech is the greatest one of our age.
Thanks for the comment, Matt. I don't see myself as a techno-pessimist because I believe the creative capacity of which technological innovation is downstream is a part of what it means to be human. I believe that technology can be very good, although it is easily distorted. Nevertheless, with intentionality we can help to steer innovation in directions which promote human flourishing. This post from a while back may help to fill in some more of my thinking here: https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/what-is-the-life-were-looking-for
I do appreciate your perspective here and agree that there are certainly areas where we need to resist what technology is doing to us. Can does not equal ought. In this mode, I'm increasingly appreciative of the Amish who have a robust approach to technology and the way they think about its impact on community, relationship, and human flourishing. A few thoughts from me on that topic a while back (https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/teleology-and-technology) and an excellent recent piece on Amistics for AI from Brian Boyd (https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-we-need-amistics-for-ai).
Another perspective is that these marketing creatives were flops. Just like some products were bad. People tried to tell a story and it didn’t work. I don’t think they speak for everyone who built these products. I’m sure the people on these teams are saying WTF is this. It happens and not an indication of what a company believes - it’s just a poor creative.
This advertising is an interesting example of the chasm between how Silicon Valley companies and their customers understand the cultural meaning of their products. It is fascinating on its own terms, but then add the context that these companies are not just wealthy, but mobilizing their wealth to project political and social power. That's quite frightening.
Illich is an old friend, though I've not picked him up in decades. Borgmann is in the "not gotten there yet" pile, so hoping you'll be writing about him sometime.
You are right on. It's not just the content of the narrative that's concerning, but the reality of the power of these companies and their power to move us in the direction they're articulated.
I think you'll enjoy Borgmann when you get a chance to read him. I wrote a bit about the device paradigm, arguably his most significant contribution to my thinking in this area last week (https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/degenerative-ai). I appreciate the way that he makes a case for the way that technology influences the way we see the world and acts in ways far more comprehensive than the simple machines we often think of.
I am very curious why you chose to articulate “I am not a techno-pessimist?”
It feels from the outside that you may be asking the very same question, as many of us are who think broadly, “Can his possibly be why we are here on earth,” and suspecting that technology may be deeply reactionary and detrimental to human-ness. So why are you resisting?
I find that antipathy toward tech these days is considered too radical, like being antenatal or wondering whether an incestuous relationship post-menopause is actually a bad thing. Our culture wants and depends on tech so much that to deny it is to risk being thought a pastoral romantic or someone simping for the “Noble Savage.”
I want to give you permission to be not ok with tech. Not that this permission has value from me, but that it has value from the human perspective. Being a deep thinker means being willing to go beneath the shibboleths, and tech is the greatest one of our age.
Free your mind, you are so close.
Thanks for the comment, Matt. I don't see myself as a techno-pessimist because I believe the creative capacity of which technological innovation is downstream is a part of what it means to be human. I believe that technology can be very good, although it is easily distorted. Nevertheless, with intentionality we can help to steer innovation in directions which promote human flourishing. This post from a while back may help to fill in some more of my thinking here: https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/what-is-the-life-were-looking-for
I do appreciate your perspective here and agree that there are certainly areas where we need to resist what technology is doing to us. Can does not equal ought. In this mode, I'm increasingly appreciative of the Amish who have a robust approach to technology and the way they think about its impact on community, relationship, and human flourishing. A few thoughts from me on that topic a while back (https://joshbrake.substack.com/p/teleology-and-technology) and an excellent recent piece on Amistics for AI from Brian Boyd (https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-we-need-amistics-for-ai).
Another perspective is that these marketing creatives were flops. Just like some products were bad. People tried to tell a story and it didn’t work. I don’t think they speak for everyone who built these products. I’m sure the people on these teams are saying WTF is this. It happens and not an indication of what a company believes - it’s just a poor creative.