Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Technological utopianism
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Criticisms== Critics claim that techno-utopianism's identification of [[social progress]] with [[scientific progress]] is a form of [[positivism]] and [[scientism]]. Critics of modern libertarian techno-utopianism point out that it tends to focus on "government interference" while dismissing the positive effects of the [[regulation]] of [[business]]. They also point out that it has little to say about the [[environmental impact of technology]]<ref name=Huesemann2011>Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). [http://www.newtechnologyandsociety.org ''Technofix: Why Technology Wonβt Save Us or the Environment''], New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, {{ISBN|0865717044}}, 464 pp.</ref> and that its ideas have little relevance for much of the rest of the world that are still relatively quite poor (see [[global digital divide]]).<ref name="Borsook 1996"/><ref name="Borsook 2000"/><ref name="Barbrook and Cameron 2000"/> In his 2010 study ''System Failure: Oil, Futurity, and the Anticipation of Disaster'', [[Canada Research Chair]]holder in cultural studies [[Imre Szeman]] argues that technological utopianism is one of the social narratives that prevent people from acting on the knowledge they have concerning the [[environmental issues with petroleum|effects of oil on the environment]].<ref name="sciencedaily.com"/> Another concern is the amount of reliance society may place on their technologies in these techno-utopia settings.<ref name=Huesemann2011/> For example, In a controversial 2011 article "Techno-Utopians are Mugged by Reality", L. Gordon Crovitz of ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' explored the concept of the violation of free speech by shutting down social media to stop violence. As a result of [[2011 England riots|a wave of British cities being looted]], former British Prime Minister [[David Cameron]] argued that the government should have the ability to shut down social media during crime sprees so that the situation could be contained. A poll was conducted to see if Twitter users would prefer to let the service be closed temporarily or keep it open so they could chat about the famous television show [[The X Factor (British TV series)|''The X-Factor'']]. The end report showed that every respondent opted for ''The X-Factor'' discussion. Clovitz contends that the negative social effect of technological utopia is that society is so addicted to technology that humanity simply cannot be parted from it even for the greater good. While many techno-utopians would like to believe that digital technology is for the greater good, he says it can also be used negatively to bring harm to the public.<ref>{{cite web |last=Crovitz |first=L. Gordon |date=August 15, 2011 |url= http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576506393735675856.html#articleTabs%3Darticle |title=Techno-Utopians Are Mugged by Reality |work=The Wall Street Journal }}</ref> These two criticisms are sometimes referred to as a technological anti-utopian view or a techno-dystopia. According to Ronald Adler and Russell Proctor, mediated communication such as phone calls, instant messaging and text messaging are steps towards a utopian world in which one can easily contact another regardless of time or location. However, mediated communication removes many aspects that are helpful in transferring messages. As it stands {{as of|lc=y|2022}}, most text, email, and instant messages offer fewer nonverbal cues about the speaker's feelings than do face-to-face encounters.<ref>{{cite book|last=Adler & Proctor II|first=Ronald B. & Russell F.|title=Looking Out Looking In|year=2011|publisher=Wadsworth Cengage Learning|location=Boston, MA|isbn=978-0-495-79621-3|pages=203}}</ref> This makes it so that mediated communication can easily be misconstrued and the intended message is not properly conveyed. With the absence of tone, body language, and environmental context, the chance of a misunderstanding is much higher, rendering the communication ineffective. In fact, mediated technology can be seen from a dystopian view because it can be detrimental to effective interpersonal communication. These criticisms would only apply to messages that are prone to misinterpretation as not every text based communication requires contextual cues. The limitations of lacking tone and body language in text-based communication could potentially be mitigated by [[videotelephony|video]] and [[augmented reality]] versions of digital communication technologies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tcworld.info/e-magazine/technical-communication/article/augmented-reality-in-technical-communication/|title=tcworld.info β technical communication|website=tcworld.info}}</ref>{{Dubious|date=June 2021}}{{Dead link|date=April 2022}} In 2019, philosopher [[Nick Bostrom]] introduced the notion of a ''vulnerable world'', "one in which there is some level of technological development at which civilization almost certainly gets devastated by default", citing the risks of a [[pandemic]] caused by a [[Do-it-yourself biology|DIY biohacker]], or an [[arms race]] triggered by the development of novel armaments.<ref name="Bostrom 2019">{{Cite journal |last=Bostrom |first=Nick |date=2019-09-06 |title=The Vulnerable World Hypothesis |journal=Global Policy|volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=455β476 |doi=10.1111/1758-5899.12718 |s2cid=203169705 |issn=1758-5880|doi-access=free }}</ref> He writes that "Technology policy should not unquestioningly assume that all technological progress is beneficial, or that complete scientific openness is always best, or that the world has the capacity to manage any potential downside of a technology after it is invented."<ref name="Bostrom 2019" />
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)