In anticipation of our regular readers’ predictable reaction to our multi-reprised expression of concern for the quality and existence of humanism in the age of ubiquitous computer dominance, we would defensively respond that the relevant metaphysical dilemma seems to be irresponsibly passed over in favor of less fundamental, temporal subjects such as Epstein-Gate, the Super Bowl, and Donald Trump. We would permissibly maintain that our sensitive concern for the patience of our kind reader is principally and responsibly outweighed by our continuing, existential concern for the nature and quality of future sentient Mankind.
Man’s avowed ubiquitous demonstration of its capability for computer innovation has revealed an overriding concern for its remarkable and profitable capability (“can”) as thematically contrasted with a responsible consideration of metaphysical propriety (“should”). The lack of sufficient (or any) consideration of the humanistic and societal impact of new advancements in computer technology has the potential to reconfigure or eliminate Man’s beneficial inclinations towards humanism, moral decision-making, aesthetic expression, and systemic human empathy.
In sad contrast to Man’s beneficial efforts at self-improvement and personal advancement, we seem to be exclusively striving for facile improvements in the performance of human activities of all kinds; inclusive, most injuriously, of normal human interaction, personal sensitivity, and morally inspired humanism.
The virulent infection of the toxic, rapidly metastasizing virus of impersonality and deprival of human nuance, as we have eternally observed, had its empirical etiology with the development and ubiquitous (now close to universal) substitution of the small, hand-held appliance, which came to be functionally misnamed the “smart phone.” With the facile use of the latter computer-screened digital device, normal and salubrious conversational interaction was empirically reduced to the exchange of impersonal digital messages, often contextually no longer timely or relevant.
We have, perhaps too often, referred to the unhealthy and non- expressive, emotionally sterile, “advancement” in societal interaction as unfulfilling and productive of personal loneliness, instead of mutual identification and comforting joint experience. We have also referred to the resultant effects of loneliness and singularity, with multiply documented increases in depression and anxiety disorders among the young. This “advancement” was our initial introduction to the ethical and humanistic significance of Silicon Valley’s costly failure to balance capability (“can” ) with “should.” It would empirically seem to be that by the exponential increase in the ubiquitous category of digital prowess, the considerations of profitability and competitive challenge of capability have completely and irresponsibly erased “should” from its viable concerns.
We have observed, by contrast, a morally boundless corcucopia of digital replacements for human conduct, ranging in category from drone military bombers to domestic vacuum cleaners and medically diagnostic wristwatches. The dire predictions of the elimination of white-collar and industrial jobs by A-1 robotization are societally concerning, as is the robotization of thought and physical activity.
Our cursory reading has furnished us with the understanding that the word “algorithm” refers to a universal data tracking system that can endlessly interpret individual search history and browsing habits and present them in natural or social media. We have read that dozens of lawsuits in recent years have gone to trial, seeking billions in damages for programs created to sustain an addictive media, with special intention on the consumption of the young, proximately resulting in depression, anxiety, and body-image issues, analogous to those of earlier cigarette advertisers. It appears evident that the insidious nature of such subtle influential activity, without relevant guardrails, redounds to a subtle, insalubrious influence on individuals of all ages. In our observed experience, responsible considerations of health and well-being are overruled by unrestrained, potentially harmful, but profitable, competitive freedom of business activity and commerce.
A responsible study should be undertaken to determine if specifically proposed computer goals are consistent with the health and well-being of human society. However, we are fearful that the process of algorithmic manipulation of human behavior, for any purpose, is contrary to the beneficial existence and advancement of Man and human society.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 