Machine Peril or Machine Promise: What do you think?
A 60-second poll on what readers believe are the biggest hopes, and dangers, of digital technology
Recently, Ruth and I had an encounter with a NASA researcher, a quantum physicist, and an Orthodox priest at a major center for theoretical physics. We are currently working on an in-depth article based on this experience, but would like to integrate our readers’ perspectives in the thoughts we hope to share.
Take our 60-second poll below—10 quick questions about two competing stories on what technology is doing to our world. The poll will be open until Saturday, Jan 27.
, and we’re inclined to agree. But who, really, are these emerging new peoples of the Machine and of the Earth? Is there any chance of common ground between them, or will they gradually separate over time into different societies—a bit like the Benedites and Lantuans in Exogenesis?Across the coming years conflict between those who want to [be] all-knowing, immortal, and infinite machines and those who want to remain creatures will only grow more acute. Both sides have legitimate, but radically different, views of what it means to be a fully realised human being. We are going to need new ways to manage this conflict. And when human-machine fusion is made real, then this conflict will be nothing less than the central political question. How do these two groups — let’s call them People of the Machine and People of the Earth — live well together?
Right now, we have no answers to this question…Instead, we are caught between two sets of stories.
Here at
and at , and I are asking these same questions as we search for hope amid the uncertainty, and maybe even some bridges of understanding between vastly different narratives of the future.We’ll report the results of today’s poll in an upcoming article soon. Please note that the questions in the poll don’t express our own opinion; we are interested in your perspectives. Here are the questions:
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspectives. Thoughts and comments? Let us know below!
Also, a big “Welcome!” to the hundreds of new subscribers who have joined
and recently. For a limited time, we have opened up our two most popular articles from behind the paywall for you (including pdf printable versions):The 3Rs of Unmachining: Guideposts for an Age of Technological Upheaval
I'd like to offer a suggestion as someone who is entirely sympathetic with what you are up to in your writing, but also as someone who is deeply immersed in the implementation of "digital technology". I think your use of the term "digital technology" is overly broad and not as specific as it needs to be to get at the issues you are rightly concerned about. As a technologist, my reaction to "digital technology" is that it subsumes everything from cell phones to pace makers and MRI machines. From video games to the super computers that facilitate scientific research. Some digital technologies truly are life-saving. Others are corrupting, and rob us of critical mental faculties. So the conceptual net you're casting by using the term "digital technologies" subsumes more, I suspect, than you intend. Just a guess, but wording the technology your survey is targeting a bit more specifically might help elicit more discerning responses to your survey. Just a thought. I'm very much a fan of your work in any case.
I am intrigued by the good/bad question. You're likely familiar with Ivan Illich's work. I just recently listened to an interview between Gordon White and Dougald Hine on Illich https://runesoup.com/2023/10/christianitys-surprising-resurgence-an-ivan-illich-perspective-dougald-hine/
and I was struck by the way Illich used the word tool rather than technology, and observed that the very same tool becomes counter-productive once it crosses a threshold of scale. Scale in the case of your work here might be translated as "number of minutes per day of exposure per person." I have a hard time saying that technologies are "bad," for fear that we slip toward "humans are bad" and "nature is good."
Thank you for your important work.