For some time now, it has been an unquestioned assumption of the American political right that the values of free-market technological innovation are intrinsically ‘conservative’ in nature. At the same time, however, the values of religion, family, cultural heritage, and tradition have been similarly regarded as foundational pillars of conservative thought. Seldom it seems though is there adequate acknowledgement within contemporary conservative discourse as to how it is that these dual sets of values, particularly that of social fabric and technological innovation, might actually be at serious odds with one another.
Found you from Quillette. But what sold me on subscribing was seeing your bio discuss ethics and automation. Lo and behold, I find an article talking about Borgmann. My writing isn't nearly as extensive or researched as yours; I'm new on this journey. But I've been spending time with Postman, McLuhan, Illich, etc., and have some Borgmann coming in as well.
"... it has been an unquestioned assumption of the American political right that the values of free-market technological innovation are intrinsically ‘conservative’ in nature."
You can imagine my shock on discovering that no less than F. A. Hayek, the grandmaster and arch-fiend of the ancaps (depending on your POV) not only understood this conflict but wrote a great deal about it in his defenses of market liberalism.
You don't hear about that part while "conservatives" go on about the importance of laissez-faire handouts and lower taxes for big corporations.
Ed Feser, who comes at these issues from a fire-breathing Aristotelian Catholic perspective (in the best ways), first introduced me to these ideas. His article "Hayek's Tragic Capitalism" is a good way in to some of the issues in that camp: https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/hayeks-tragic-capitalism/
The more interesting thing is how this misunderstanding has cashed itself out in real-life political and social debates. The Left is looney, but the allegedly conservative Right doesn't offer much except pandering to big money interests.
Still, it's helpful to see that even within the traditionalist camp there are resources to push back on this attitude.
"Consequently, within debates about the dangers of automation, for instance, techno-optimists like Ray Kurzweil appeal to the coming ‘singularity’ (the anticipated merger of man with benevolent artificial intelligence) to argue for less regulation upon trans-national tech corporations [3].... [3] Within this camp, I would also count transhumanist/futurist, Yuval Noah Harari, author of Homo Deus, who predicts that the 21st century will usher in a new age of ‘human gods’."
I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of Harari's views. I do not believe he is a "techno-optimist" and I have not heard him arguing "for less regulation upon trans-national tech corporations." To the contrary, I read Homo Deus as a depiction of a dystopian future in which an elite class joins with technology (the merging of tech and capital) to lord over a non-cyborg pathetically human underclass. I don't see how Harari's prediction of what he calls the rising "useless class" can be construed as optimistic.
He is a "techno-optimist" in the sense that he believes technology will greatly enhance the lives of certain rich and powerful individuals, but he is very much a pessimist when it comes to the impact this will have on society at large. Unless I was somehow projecting my own value judgments on Harari's depiction of a future defined by a god-like ruling class and a "useless" mass beneath them, I would put Harari much more on the techno-skeptic side of the ledger.
Harari's personal life also suggests deep techno-skepticism - he does not personally use any social media and spends as much as months a year on silent meditation retreats.
Found you from Quillette. But what sold me on subscribing was seeing your bio discuss ethics and automation. Lo and behold, I find an article talking about Borgmann. My writing isn't nearly as extensive or researched as yours; I'm new on this journey. But I've been spending time with Postman, McLuhan, Illich, etc., and have some Borgmann coming in as well.
Cheers!
"... it has been an unquestioned assumption of the American political right that the values of free-market technological innovation are intrinsically ‘conservative’ in nature."
You can imagine my shock on discovering that no less than F. A. Hayek, the grandmaster and arch-fiend of the ancaps (depending on your POV) not only understood this conflict but wrote a great deal about it in his defenses of market liberalism.
You don't hear about that part while "conservatives" go on about the importance of laissez-faire handouts and lower taxes for big corporations.
Ed Feser, who comes at these issues from a fire-breathing Aristotelian Catholic perspective (in the best ways), first introduced me to these ideas. His article "Hayek's Tragic Capitalism" is a good way in to some of the issues in that camp: https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/hayeks-tragic-capitalism/
The more interesting thing is how this misunderstanding has cashed itself out in real-life political and social debates. The Left is looney, but the allegedly conservative Right doesn't offer much except pandering to big money interests.
Still, it's helpful to see that even within the traditionalist camp there are resources to push back on this attitude.
Great piece, but I have one quibble:
"Consequently, within debates about the dangers of automation, for instance, techno-optimists like Ray Kurzweil appeal to the coming ‘singularity’ (the anticipated merger of man with benevolent artificial intelligence) to argue for less regulation upon trans-national tech corporations [3].... [3] Within this camp, I would also count transhumanist/futurist, Yuval Noah Harari, author of Homo Deus, who predicts that the 21st century will usher in a new age of ‘human gods’."
I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of Harari's views. I do not believe he is a "techno-optimist" and I have not heard him arguing "for less regulation upon trans-national tech corporations." To the contrary, I read Homo Deus as a depiction of a dystopian future in which an elite class joins with technology (the merging of tech and capital) to lord over a non-cyborg pathetically human underclass. I don't see how Harari's prediction of what he calls the rising "useless class" can be construed as optimistic.
He is a "techno-optimist" in the sense that he believes technology will greatly enhance the lives of certain rich and powerful individuals, but he is very much a pessimist when it comes to the impact this will have on society at large. Unless I was somehow projecting my own value judgments on Harari's depiction of a future defined by a god-like ruling class and a "useless" mass beneath them, I would put Harari much more on the techno-skeptic side of the ledger.
Harari's personal life also suggests deep techno-skepticism - he does not personally use any social media and spends as much as months a year on silent meditation retreats.