Technology creates its own imperatives, and, at the same time, creates a wide-ranging social system to reinforce its imperatives. | Neil Postman, Technopoly
I am not a Luddite, though I have been accused of it. But no one would mistake me for being an early adopter, as it feels like signing on to be the guinea pigs of social experiments. My relationship with technology is a bit more complicated than either of these. I am both excited about the good that human beings can do through creating and discovery, while also being keenly aware of how much destruction these same developments can produce. I believe we need to be cautiously discerning when we embrace exciting tools of progress.
Some of my wariness was developed in college. I read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (much of it is centered on the television) while the internet was confirming many of his prophecies in ways he could not have imagined. In my American History class, I was assigned his book Technopoly (quoted above) which is subtitled: the surrender of culture to technology. The general idea is that there is a tipping point where technology goes from being a tool to advance an agreed upon culture, to one in which it IS the culture and we are formed for and by it. What ends up happening is that we become fully dependent on and controlled by the very things that were meant to make our lives easier. Michael Toscano (himself a Postman appreciator), in an article for First Things, describes how this has become our reality:
To describe what was happening to them as “addiction” is not quite right. True, smartphones reshape the brain, and scrolling causes dopamine hits in kids that researchers claim are comparable to the effects of snorting cocaine. So “addiction” seems apt, and yet it misses a key point—that their reaction was designed. It is more proper to say that they were being “controlled.” | Michael Toscano, Ensnared in the Web
I am not a conspiracy theorist, believing that the effects of Big Tech are a plan being hatched behind closed doors by people laughing maniacally. It does seem that the more we invest in certain online technologies (and the smartphone to carry them around with us) the more we are shaped to need them (and the more they shape our reality). To the extent that when I tell people that I do not own a smartphone, the immediate question is: how do you function in this culture? What was once a tool has become a necessity; many people can not imagine a world without it.
This is not the first product that has reshaped human life (nor will it be the last). What we need is some way to measure the pros and cons BEFORE we are so heavily invested that it is controlling us. In some ways that is what Wendell Berry did when he wrote the article: Why I am not Going to Buy a Computer. Berry was another influence on my thinking of how we engage with technology. He was aware that we can’t simply hide away from everything that may have some negative effects, stating at the beginning of the essay:
I did not say that I proposed to end forthwith all my involvement in harmful technology, for I do not know how to do that. I said merely that I want to limit such involvement, and to a certain extent I do know how to do that. If some technology does damage to the world … then why is it not reasonable, and indeed moral, to try to limit one’s use of that technology?
His point is: if we are willing to acknowledge that an invention does a great deal of damage to the world, shouldn’t we try to limit our use of it? Everything in a sinful world will have some negative implications, this is what the twisting of sin does. It would be helpful to have a rubric to measure this beyond a pro/con list. What Berry gives us in this essay is a list of statements to apply to each product that is offered to us:
- The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
This is a simple monetary statement. There may be a time when the benefits are worth paying a bit more for, but there has to be a financial level at which the ‘upgrade’ prices itself out.
- It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
This one is especially true of kitchen gadgets. I have seen homes with so many appliances that they can’t fit them all in the pantry. At a certain point, the question of scale must be asked.
- It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.
When you add something, you most likely replace something else. The technology you replaced has its own pros and cons. If the new one isn’t substantially better, it is most likely not worth it.
- It should use less energy than the one it replaces.
This one is of particular concern to Berry, who is a conservationist. Becoming more reliant on energy that we don’t produce ourselves makes us dependent.
- If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body.
This one builds off of the last one: the more it is connected to the work of the body, the more it is aligned with how God created us to function.
- It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools.
If your tools are so complex that it cannot be repaired, then it is made to be disposed of. The more disposable we become, the more waste we create.
- It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible.
This is an issue of accessibility. If you are reliant on a product, you need to be able to get it quickly. If it is needed, you have to be able to get it.
- It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair.
This one comes from Berry’s understanding of community. He sees the people of an area like an ecosystem that all rely on one another. The shop owner and repairman is a friend who feeds his family based on you shopping at his store. While we don’t always operate like this, especially in larger cities, Berry would consider this a loss not worth the upgrade.
- It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships.
Here Berry points to the good that is replaced or ‘upset’ by new technology. Specifically, he is calling us to consider the relationships that we have as more valuable than many of the benefits that progress brings. In an individualistic culture, we tend to downplay the benefit of strong relational bonds, but we also suffer the effects of this: anxiety, depression, and loneliness. We have allowed our technology to define our sense of self and it is not satisfying. This is even more evident in Berry’s follow-up article where he addresses the criticism he received.
In the sermon Sunday, as God made it clear that He was not impressed by human achievement, I made the point that we should be willing to go against the flow. I added a few questions to what Berry has here:
- Does this idea or product help to bring God’s design to bear on His creation?
Another way to ask this is: does this help the world look more like God’s Kingdom? In the Cultural Mandate we were called to fill the earth and subdue it, with the purpose of filling being to make this world ordered. The way we understand order is from the Creator. We should not adopt any technology that pulls the world further from God’s design.
- Is it humane?
God designed human beings as the centerpiece of His creation. He formed human beings and gave them a specific place within His creation. Our progress, as His people, must keep His design for humanity central. This includes human dignity, the fact that we were made for relationship (as a reflection of the Trinity), the gendered aspect of our design, marriage and family as a key institution for the maturation of children, the limitation of our bodies, and the brokenness of sin as an aspect of our humanity. Each of these has implications for how we interact with the technology offered to us.
- Does it bring glory to God?
The Bible puts this forward as the purpose for why we exist. Every aspect of our life either honors God’s authority or fights against it. Every technology either helps us in this pursuit or works against us. One of the major questions that has been argued over in relation to technology is: Is technology neutral? It is merely a tool that we can use for good OR evil? or is it biased one way or the other?
When I was going through college, the answer that I usually received was: technology does not have a soul, thus it is what people do with it that makes it good or bad. Over the last 10 years, this definition has changed, with even Google’s AI overview (after I typed in this question) admitting that it is indeed biased:
No, technology is not neutral; it is inherently biased, reflecting the values, assumptions, and worldviews of its creators and users. Because technology is designed with specific intentions and encourages particular patterns of use, it frames reality, shapes social structures, and can have both intended and unintended consequences, which may be discriminatory or beneficial depending on the context and how it is deployed. | AI overview
As people like Jonathan Haidt have pointed out the effects of smartphones on our society, there is a bit more conversation about the fact that our technology may be more controlling than we previously thought. As this data comes out and there is more and more evidence that the experiment is failing, the next question is: what are we supposed to do about it?
You may not draw your line in the same place that I do and abstain from smartphones entirely, as I have not chosen to stop at the same place as Berry and reject the computer. We do have a responsibility to not simply walk blindly through the world, picking up things that may hinder our ability to live out the gospel. We need to be aware of how these things affect us. Mike Cosper describes this in his article Is Technology Neutral?, saying:
This isn’t to say that the moment you pick up an iPhone or an assault rifle that you’re immediately defiled—-that’s legalism. Instead, it’s merely to point out that these objects influence us profoundly because they open possibilities and make easier a whole world of action that was previously unavailable or much more difficult. In the case of the iPhone, the result is that we step into a way of living and relating that is more disruptive, more flooded with information, and ultimately more dependent upon that particular piece of technology.
God gives us a reason to stop and consider: does this make life better? Not only the moment, when you need to find a restaurant or get directions. Has your love and gratitude and faith been improved by this technology? If not, then it may be controlling you.
It may be time to start taking your life back.