Technology has become more than a method to accomplish a desired aim
Where in prior times technique was referring to: “a method of accomplishing a desired aim”, today we speak more of technology. Technology has long been presented as a set of techniques; today it has become more than a method to accomplish a desired aim.
From now on, we live in ‘the age of makers’. In times when there are more people with mobile phone access than toothbrushes, everyone has the ability to start up a million euro business from behind the kitchen table. Technology does not only affect business any longer; it also affects culture, politics, society and every element we value in life. Maybe most important of all, it affects the human race as we know it today.
For the reason technology will impact the way we have lived for ages, it is legitimate to ask whether there is an intersection where humans and objects will find a mutually beneficial coexistence, or whether one of these entities will rule over the other, or whether there will be an alliance between the human race and some sort of technology that represents a global connected world brain.
Will technology be, like in prior times, a collection of methods to accomplishing a desired aim, or will the human race be enslaved by technology and ruled by the artificial intelligence embedded in it?
Objects and techno-culture
“New solutions beget new problems, which beget new solutions. This is the cycle of our species. We will always make things better. We will never make them best. We should not expect to anticipate all the consequences of our creations, or even most of them, good or bad. We have a different responsibility: to actively seek those consequences out, discover them as soon as possible, and, if they are bad, to do what creators do best: welcome them as new problems to solve.”
The distinction between objects and subjects is not a clear-cut line. Many epistemologists argue that the world is composed of objects, some being entities as diverse as mind, language, cultural and social entities, and others being independent of humans, such as galaxies, stones, quarks, and so on. We believe that objects and subjects should not be confused and that an object should be thought for-itself rather than as an opposing pole before or in front of a subject.
You can read the full paper below
This paper is a mutual effort of: Gérald Santucci, Sophie le Pallec & Rick Bouter
Gérald Santucci, former Adviser for Cross-cutting Policy/Research Issues, with focus on Knowledge Management, integration of Research/Innovation and Policy, and Data4Policy, and now Writer – Thinker – Adviser – Consultant as Self-employed Ambassador for the INTEROP-VLab
Sophie le Pallec, Head of Public and regulatory Affairs (GS1 France)
Rick Bouter, Helping companies to innovate & differentiate with emerging technology one step at the time – Accenture Consulting
This paper was written for the Internet of Things council, The Internet of Things Council is a think tank, consultancy, accelerator and forecasting group on the Internet of Things. Council is a loose group of professionals with different ideas and opinions. We want to host the full range of opinions on what will be a small avalanche of disruptive innovations. We have been through the full range of emotions and conceptual clarity that comes with grasping the territory, the full logistical, business, social and philosophical implications of the Internet of Things (IoT).