Review of Doug Hill's Not So Fast: Worth Reading, Not Too Quicky

I've had an advance reading copy on hand for quite some time of Doug Hill's Not So Fast: Thinking Twice about Technology, and I guess, given the title, who could object to my taking so long to read and review it?  But I've slowly been reading and reviewing two other books - Grant Wythoff's The Perversity of Things and Rob Sheffield's Dreaming the Beatles - and, anyway, now that I've finished Not So Fast, I can tell you two things about it:  I strongly disagree with its premise and just about every argument Hill makes in the book, and I recommend it.

Now, it's rare that I would recommend a book with which I disagree, but it happens.  Before I tell you why, let me tell you why I disagree with this book.   I'm a technological optimist.  Not because I'm ignorant of the many critics of technology Hill cites in his book, but because I've read them all and found them wanting.   The critic often thinks the optimist is ignorant, but the optimist can just as often be a critic of the critic.  In my case, though I don't preach the singularity or any kind of technological utopia, I think technologies help us fulfill our human goals on multiple levels.  I've been saying this since my doctoral dissertation, Human Replay: A Theory of the Evolution of Media (New York University, 1979), which was recently put up on Amazon.

Unfortunately, Hill overlooks the most reasonable pro-technological arguments, and relies instead on quasi-mystical futurists as his opponents.  And sometimes he misrepresents a seminal thinker such as Marshall McLuhan, for example, who didn't turn from pro-technology with the global village to critic of technology with discarnate man as Hill says.  McLuhan instead insisted that he never made value judgements, and indeed his global village had beds of roses with plenty of thorns.

So, why, then, am I recommending Hill's book?  Because I think it's important that we continue to discuss and strive to understand the nature and impact of technology, which is what Hill does in Not So Fast.  I also think it's important to draw into the discussion ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, and modern practitioners ranging from Edison and Ford to Steve Jobs.  (Indeed, I think touching base with such minds is so important that I frequently include them in my science fiction.)  It's also good to see outright critics of technology ranging from Jacques Ellul to Langdon Winner given such play, if only to offer avenues to students of all ages who are new to the game of fathoming technology.

But in the end, as the Nobel laureate biologist Sir Peter Medawar liked to say, what's most human about us is our technology, which means that to oppose it with a tone or implication of apocalypse amounts to despairing of the human condition itself.

Intelligence 1.8: Heart of Darkness, Cyberstyle

It was flashback time on Intelligence 1.8 on Monday, with a combination of the least amount of high-tech gadgetry we've seen on the show so far, and the most backstory for Gabriel.

This makes for a nice enough episode, but one which resembles the CBS mega-hit NCIS more then it does the science fiction on Person of Interest, Revolution, Almost Human, and Intelligence.   Still, the developing chemistry between Gabriel and Riley was good to see, as was Gabriel before he had the implant.

And the story of Norris - who partnered with Gabriel in the flashback, and is the crucial character in the present part of the narrative - has echoes of Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Coppola's Apocalypse Now, which is to say, important and moving.   The toll of war on those who survive can make them something less than human - or less motivated by the empathy that most of us have - and Norris provides a powerful contrast to Gabriel on this score.  Both survived.  Gabriel was embedded with a chip which connects him directly with the Internet.   Norris was not.   And who is the more human?   It's Gabriel, despite or maybe because of his techno assist.

This also makes a point which is consistent with my view of technology, and the view of a small number of other academics and theorists.  The Nobel laureate biologist Sir Peter Medawar once said that technologies are what make us human.   You can see evidence of this every day.  When someone puts on a pair of glasses, is she or her less human?  No, they are more human, because by seeing better, they can navigate their world better and more effectively accomplish their human goals.    When someone puts on on Google Glass, are they less human?  No, I would say they are more human, for the same reasons that corrective glasses better enable out humanity.

Gabriel and what he represents are not that big a step beyond Google Glass in its enablement of humanity.  That's one of things that makes this series so good.

See also Intelligence Debuts ... Intelligence 1.2: Lightning Changes ...Intelligence 1.3: Edward Snowden and 24 ... Intelligence 1.4: Social Media Weaponry ... Intelligence 1.5: The Watch ... Intelligence 1.6: Helix meets Rectify and Justified ... Intelligence 1.7: Nanites

#SFWApro



Like science fiction about chips in the brain?  Check out The Pixel Eye