Latest post in my blog on popular science:
Technology with a human face
https://populscience.blogspot.com/2021/02/technology-with-human-face.html
Regards,
Dear friends,
Once again, many thanks, Manuel, for a thought provoking blog. I just reread this morning Lewisâs comment in POP about the capacity of what he calls âfixedâ nature. (I would prefer to call it âstableâ nature but wonât argue that now.) There is not a single technological development in our world which isnât a discovery and use of the stable properties of the natural world. God put those there and God also made the human mind to discover and develop them. With that recognition, I part ways to an extent with both Lewis and Tolkien who seemed to think technology was inherently bad.
I also recall Lewis saying how quickly âthoughts of the divineâ become âdivine thoughts.â (Canât remember the source for that one.) This is a temptation within all of us to slip into idolatry about most anything we think, say, or do.
With that as background, I identify with the second group you mention, Manuel, those who would choose some constraints on technology. Or the steering of technological development towards the small and beautiful.
I personally believe that our current technological abilities are equivalent to the development of the printing press. As such, they have an enormous democratizing influence. If one takes a close look at the actual data, the world has never been healthier or wealthier as a whole as it is in this age. This health and wealth are enjoyed by larger proportions of even the poorest countries than ever before. https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$chart-type=bubbles
As for âdehumanizing,â there are many things that dehumanize. Slavery and human trafficking, just to mention one. Old civilizations built on the backs of slaves were just as dehumanizing as our factories are. And if Lewis is right, nothing is as dehumanizing as the sinful nature of human beings, all destined to be âUnmenâ if they reject the only remedy there is.
Ruby
1 Like
I agree. However, thereâs the anecdote about Tolkien writing in the back of the check he had drawn to pay for his income tax: âNot a penny for the Concorde.â In this point he was ahead of his time. In fact, the case of the Concorde proves that itâs possible to step back in technology in some cases.
Regards,
1 Like
(Second send)
Ah, Manuel, I rarely disagree with you but in this case, I donât think it was the technology that went backwards with the Concorde but that it was directing that technology towards one measure, speed, without also directing the technology towards fuel efficiency and the other capacities which are at least equally important in the commercial air travel industry.
So it was not a failure of technology per se but a failure of a more holistic application of multiple technologies towards the manufacture of an airplane meant for public transportation (as opposed to space exploration).
And I hope the story about Tolkien is true but, in some way, we all paid for the Concorde as we do for most everything that is made in this world.
Ruby
Ah, Manuel, I rarely disagree with you but in this case, I donât think it was the technology that went backwards with the Concorde but that it was directing that technology towards one measure, speed, without also directing the technology towards fuel efficiency and the other capacities which are at least equally important in the commercial air travel industry.
So it was not a failure of technology per se but a failure of a more holistic application of multiple technologies towards the manufacture of an airplane meant for public transportation (as opposed to space exploration).
Agreed. But the fact that no one has tried to build a similar airplane that would solve those problems indicates something.
And I hope the story about Tolkien is true but, in some way, we all paid for the Concorde as we do for most everything that is made in this world.
I remember that I also thought this when I first read this anecdote.
Regards,
Ah, Manuel, I rarely disagree with you but in this case, I donât think it was the technology that went backwards with the Concorde but that it was directing that technology towards one measure, speed, without also directing the technology towards fuel efficiency and the other capacities which are at least equally important in the commercial air travel industry.
So it was not a failure of technology per se but a failure of a more holistic application of multiple technologies towards the manufacture of an airplane meant for public transportation (as opposed to space exploration).
And I hope the story about Tolkien is true but, in some way, we all paid for the Concorde as we do for most everything that is made in this world.
Ruby
In âThe Abolition of Manâ, Lewis wrote:
âThere is something which unites magic and applied science while
separating both from the wisdom of earlier ages. For the wise men of old
the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and
the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic
and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the
wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of
this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting
and impious, such as digging up and mutilating the dead.â
This seems to be an uncharacteristically careless use of words by Lewis, i.e. âapplied scienceâ has produced practically every material thing we have, including books, and medicines. But are there any other instances where Lewis says something like this critical of technology?
Dimitry
âLove is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever.â (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8)
Lewis says similar things in âThat Hideous Strength,â chapter II.I, where he writes this:
âSurely, Feverstone,â said Busby, "youâre making a great mystery about nothing. I should have thought the objects of the N.I.C.E. were pretty clear. Itâs the first attempt to take applied science seriously from the national point of view. The difference in scale between it and anything weâve had before amounts to a difference in kind. The buildings alone, the apparatus alone!âthink what it has done already for industry. Think how it is going to mobilise all the talent of the country: and not only scientific talent in the narrower sense.
And in a letter dated September 26, 1945 Lewis wrote this:
Iâm glad you recognised the N.I.C.E.[91] as not being quite the fantastic absurdity some readers think. I hadnât myself thought that any of the people in contemporary rackets were really dabbling in Magic: I had supposed that to be a romantic addition of my own.92 But there you are. The trouble about writing satire is that the real world always anticipates you, and what were meant for exaggerations turn out to be nothing of the sort.
To which Walter Hooper adds the following footnote:
[91] This evil magic is analysed in That Hideous Strength, ch. 13, section 4, p. 315 where Dr Dimble says: âMerlin isâŚthe last vestige of an old order in which matter and spirit were, from our modern point of view, confused. For him every operation on Nature is a kind of personal contact, like coaxing a child or stroking oneâs horse. After him came the modern man to whom Nature is something deadâa machine to be worked, and taken to bits if it wonât work the way he pleases. Finally, come the Belbury people, who take over that view from the modern man unaltered and simply want to increase their power by tacking onto it the aid of spiritsâextra-natural, anti-natural spirits.â Lewis had pointed out in The Abolition of Man (London: Oxford University Press, 1943; Fount, 1999, ch. 3, p. 47: âFor the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men.â
Where he inserts the same quote you mentioned.
Regards,
Thank you, Manuel. In his preface to That Hideous Strength, Lewis wrote: âThis is a âtall storyâ about devilry, though it has behind it a serious âpointâ which I have tried to make in my Abolition of Man.â
I must admit that I couldnât quite see the connection between the two, but your quotes about âapplied scienceâ in THS bring it all together.
Dimitry
âLove is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. Love will last forever.â (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8)