Introduction
The question about the interconnection between technology development and progress has been a matter of discussion since the Enlightenment era. The idea about technological improvement as a base for social development and the level of human well-being and personal happiness has been prevailing in the United States since the late eighteenth century. However, after the 1960s, this belief has been widely discredited, and at present, the idea of the power of technology is often approached with skepticism.
In light of this, the meaning of the very term “progress” needs to be clarified. It might be interpreted in several ways: as a growth of economic wealth, improvement of the social system, personal development, and an increase in the level of happiness. As it has been proved over centuries, all these factors are not always coinciding; moreover, sometimes they may contradict each other. Current global environmental problems, social conflicts, and unjust regimes of the past century, such as Nazi holocaust, the Stalinist terror, and the arms race with nuclear danger, are a few of the examples. In this essay, it will be argued that technological development does not necessarily ensure “progress” in the sense of improvement of the social aspect of life, as well as increase the level of “happiness,” a specific characteristic of human well-being.
Development of Technology: historical background
The Roots
The roots of the idea of the power of science and technology lie in the philosophy of the Enlightenment in the era of the First Industrial Revolution. It was the late eighteen century when the implementation of considerably improved machinery in the factory system caused the significant rise of the economy, accompanied by the belief in technology as a means of social improvement. The philosophy of Rene Descartes, the base of the modern European way of thinking, presents nature as a “great engine,” a metasystem consisting of sub-systems, among which are human bodies as well (Marx 38). Later, similar ideas of Newton and other natural scientists were defined as “the Mechanical Philosophy.” Such power would be ensured by science and technology, and its application would improve all aspects of life – economic, social, political, and moral.
Technological Progress as a Means of Social Improvement
In the Enlightenment era, the idea of social improvement as an outcome of technological development became the leading concept. The French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet, the English chemist Joseph Priestley, and Benjamin Franklin were defining progress as political and social liberation. A just government system, in their opinion, might be achieved with the help of science and technology, regarded not as “ends in themselves,” but as “instruments for carrying out a comprehensive transformation of society” (Marx 34). The optimistic expectations were the sign of this era, and a “perfect man” was expected to appear, gaining total control over nature.
At the same time, there was a place for an alternative view, disregarding the optimistic ideas about the future built by science and technology. In 1785, Thomas Jefferson spoke against introducing the new manufactures with improved machinery in America, considering it as “incompatible with republican government and the happiness of the people” (Marx 35). Another example was Benjamin Franklin, who refused to accept a patent for his inventions, arguing that the inventions should not be used for private profit. This stage of technological development had much idealism that vanished in the following era.
The Technocratic Concept of Progress
At the next stage, technological development lost its instrumental meaning as it became an “end in itself.” It was already not connected to social and political ideals; instead, the belief in the sufficiency of technological innovation for progress emerged. People had to “ensure the advance of science-based technologies,” while “the rest will take care of itself” (Marx 37). Thus, social, political, and cultural dimensions of life, along with such values as justice, freedom, and harmony, became “the rest,” secondary factors.
In 1829, Thomas Carlyle announced the advent of the “Age of Machinery.” It meant nothing else than the emergence of the world “dominated by mechanical (utilitarian) thinking as well as by actual machines” (Marx 34). Daniel Webster, an American lawyer, stated that “the future is known only to Omniscience” (Marx 36). The idea of a totally intelligible universe that could be analyzed and, ultimately, controlled and modified by the human’s will, had influenced all spheres of life; it meant not only approach toward technology but the way of thinking.
It is necessary to mention that the emerged new social class of industrial capitalists was the force that supported the idea of “almighty” technology. For them, it was a means of their material well-being, ensuring the proper development of their business. As they were influential, the idea gained power in society. Such phenomena as “Fordism,” or mass production with its standardizing and control of the workplace, manifested the very essence of the technocratic concept of progress.
Adversarial Culture
At the same time, the idealism of republicans, with their idioms of freedom and utopian socialism, did not disappear. It was the ground on which adversarial culture grew, to culminate later in the 1960s, in the radicality of the counter-culture, when “earlier eccentric minority” acquired “certain intellectual respect” (Marx 40). Along with other claims, the followers of the antinuclear movements, “soft energy,” and “alternative technologies” expressed disenchantment in technological progress.
Technology and Economic Wealth
The base of which the view of the benefits of technological development stands at present remains the same as it was during the “technocratic” stage. Although there may be different purposes of the technological improvement announced formally, the underlying reason is that it ensures economic wealth and material stability. The comfort of life with machines and gadgets, in most cases, overweighs other values. However, it would be superficial to think that only material wealth attracts people aiming to buy a new device or upgrade the existing one. It seems that still the shadow of the romanticism of the first witnesses of the power of technology still resides in people’s souls, making them hope that social harmony and personal happiness may be achieved by its means. However, if the material wealth provided by technology, may be measured, it is a question, whether it is necessarily the base for other aspects of progress – its social, cultural, and intellectual aspects.
Technology, Human Development, and Happiness
As it has been demonstrated in the historical overview, parallel to the prevailing since the Enlightenment era opinion about the undoubtedly beneficial character of the technology development, there always existed people in opposition to this opinion. In the nineteenth century, such an opposite view was expressed by Henry David Thoreau(1818-1862), a writer who chose to live in a small abode in the countryside. The book that has been written during his self-isolation, Walden, describes Thoreau’s lifestyle and presents his thoughts and life position.
The simplicity of life was his ideal, manifested in his approach to every activity, and nature was his teacher. As he writes, “every morning was a cheerful invitation t make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence, with the Nature herself” (Thoreau 81). Speaking about the absence of alarm, he argued: “We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn” (Thoreau 82). He meant, however, not just the ability to wake up without mechanical devices; the point was to maintain a permanent state of awareness that comes from the mind observation and training of attention.
Thoreau describes the usual lifestyle of the people, pointing out the multiplicity of unnecessary things around them. Railroads bring people “to heaven in season,” so people must build them, even if they do not wish it. Thus, aiming for freedom of “heaven,” people, ultimately, become the slaves of work. “We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us,” writes Thoreau (85). It is straightly connected to the current situation when people are ready to travel from their houses to work up to seven hours per day. This rate paid for assumed “heaven” they experience in their countryside houses, is overweighed by “the hell” of “commuting,” which is well described by Paumgarten (2007). All these are, ultimately, the outcome of people’s desires when they are “determined to be starved before we are hungry” (Thoreau 85). It seems that life with technology’s advantages, although supposed to simplify the routine, in fact, makes it more sophisticated, adding discomfort into people’s minds.
The understanding of the value of simplicity is the reason why Walden Berry, an American writer, is “not going to buy a computer.” In his essay, he calls himself a fundamentalist and conservationist, rejecting to follow the way of most writers that replaces the traditional “pencil and paper” by computers. He does not see that “computers are bringing us one step nearer to anything that does matter to me: peace, economic justice, ecological health, political honesty, family and community stability, good work” (Berry 170). Addressing his opponents, he argues: “When somebody has used a computer to write work that is demonstrably better than Dante’s, and when this better is demonstrably attributable to the use of a computer, then I will speak of computers with a more respectful tone of voice” (Berry 171). Unless it is done, the development of personal and professional skills, in his opinion, is completely independent of “technical support” and often is contradictory to it.
The next point is the relation of technological development to human happiness. Accordingly to multiple surveys, evaluating people’s satisfaction with their life and the feeling of inner harmony, despite the improvement of technology during the past half-century, people are not happier than they were in the 1960s (Surowiecki). Although the level of economic wealth is increased, though “people have the freedom to but whatever they want,” they only start to want more, not achieving satisfaction by any means. Thus, the availability of material goods, by the purpose of which technological development is driven, changes nothing in people’s inner condition, ultimately, indicating the absence of progress.
Conclusion
In this essay, it was argued that the development of technology does not mean progress in a general sense, including social, political, moral, and intellectual development, as well as human happiness. Undoubtedly, it is connected to the increase in the level of economic wealth that could be one of the aspects of progress; however, this factor is not the only base for it. Although it seems unnecessary to reject all the benefits of technology, as done by some radicals like Thoreau or Berry, the role of it should be reevaluated, allowing more space for other factors that influence progress.
Works Cited
Berry, Wendell. What Are People For?: Essays. Counterpoint, 2010.
Marx, Leo. “Does Improved Technology Mean progress?” Technology Review, vol. 90, no. 1, 1987, pp. 33-41.
Paumgarten, Nick. “There and Back Again.”The New Yorker.
Surowiecki, James. “Technology and Happiness.”MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 2020.
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden; Or, Life in the Woods. Oxford University Press, 2008.