![]() ![]() ![]() First, I clarify the concept of techno-optimism, focusing on both the optimistic and technological aspects of it. To make this case the article proceeds in four parts. Identifying these members is the goal of this article. Nevertheless, it is possible to clarify the cluster of views that is picked out by the term ‘techno-optimism’ and to show that some members of this cluster of views are more intellectually respectable than others. To do so would require knowledge to which we have no access. For reasons that will be outlined later in this article, it is impossible to provide a robust defence of techno-optimism. This article attempts to push back against this scepticism by developing a philosophical analysis, evaluation and partial defence of techno-optimism. Some have pointed out that pessimistic views are de rigueur among intellectuals, particularly in the post-Enlightenment era (Harris, 2002 Prescott, 2012) optimistic views are, by contrast, “not regarded as intellectually respectable” (Boden, 1966, 291). This scepticism may have deeper roots in intellectual temperament. Footnote 1 Indeed, many academics see techno-optimism as irrational and superstitious - a faith-based initiative with little grounding in reality (Wilson, 2017 Keary, 2016 Krier & Gilette 1985 Alexander & Rutherford, 2019 ). Indeed, much of the academic debate about the impacts of technology on society has a pessimistic angle to it, highlighting the ethical harms and unanticipated effects of technology on the environment, social norms and personal well-being. Techno-optimist views are common in industry and policy (Johnston, 2020 McKeown, 2018 Morozov, 2011), but they tend to be treated with suspicion in the academy. I’m sure we’re going to do it.īezos’s statement is a classic example of techno-optimism: the view that technology, when combined with human passion and ingenuity, is the key to unlocking a better world. ![]() That’s what we humans need to do right now. ![]() I really do believe when ingenuity gets involved, when invention gets involved, when people get determined and when passion comes out, when they make strong goals - you can invent your way out of any box. Finally, it is concluded that although strong forms of techno-optimism are not intellectually defensible, a modest, agency-based version of techno-optimism may be defensible. The paper also considers possible responses from the techno-optimist. The paper discusses five such critiques in detail (the values critique, the treadmill critique, the sustainability critique, the irrationality critique and the insufficiency critique). Each of these premises is highly controversial and can be subjected to a number of critiques. Whatever its strength, to defend this stance, one must flesh out an argument with four key premises. These vary along a number of key dimensions but each shares the view that technology plays a key role in ensuring that the good prevails over the bad. It is argued that techno-optimism is a pluralistic stance that comes in weak and strong forms. This paper attempts to address this oversight by providing a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of techno-optimism. What is techno-optimism and how can it be defended? Although techno-optimist views are widely espoused and critiqued, there have been few attempts to systematically analyse what it means to be a techno-optimist and how one might defend this view. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |