Technology starts with a purpose, not just an invention, and as such cannot be value-neutral. The argument goes that the responsibility for the impact of technology lies with the people who create or use it, not the technology itself.
We live in a world of technology. Look around you. Right now, I have a TV, a laptop, a smartphone, an electronic watch, and a cell phone charger. None of these things came from nature, but were invented by people. And all of these inventions were created by technology. It’s hard to deny that technology has enriched our lives, but as science has advanced, some technologies have become so powerful that they’ve become a threat to humanity. In fact, there are a number of inventions that have had devastating consequences. For example, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1970 caused an estimated 50,000 victims, 30,000 of whom died. Abortion technology has made it possible to kill an unborn fetus by human decision. Germs created in the laboratories of biologists have become deadly weapons of mass destruction as biological weapons. Anthrax is a prime example. For these reasons, people are deeply troubled by the idea of technology. Is technology something that can be judged by its value? At the root of this conflict is the following issue. Does the responsibility for the impact of technology lie with the technology itself or with the people who use it? I don’t think technology can exist purely on its own, i.e., technology is not value-neutral.
First, technology cannot exist without a purpose. Technology is an invention, not a discovery, and invention starts with a need. Here’s an example. The telephone was invented to communicate in situations where communication was not possible by nurture. The light bulb was invented to brighten a dark night so we could “see,” and the chair was invented so we could sit comfortably. It doesn’t stop there. If you look around you, you’ll see that most things were created by technology, and you’ll realize that they were all created for a purpose. In other words, technology is not naturally occurring. Purpose exists before technology. And as long as there is purpose, value judgments about purpose are inevitable. Even those who argue that technology is value-neutral will acknowledge that technology contains purpose. However, they see purpose and technology in a different order of existence. In other words, they argue that technology exists in its own form, and that the purpose for which it is used distinguishes it from evil and good. As such, they believe that technology is innocent and fully accountable to those who set its purpose. But can technology be free from purpose? Technology is born from purpose, so it cannot be free from purpose, and I find the claim that technology is innocent to be a contradiction in terms.
Second, there are no two technologies under the sun. Those who argue for value neutrality say that a technology’s value is defined by how it is used for someone’s purpose. For example, dynamite is a technology used in construction to create tunnels, but it is essentially just a “blasting technology,” and it is the decision of the person using it to use it as a weapon of mass destruction. But is “blasting technology” the same technology when it’s used to blow up a mountain as it is when it’s used as a weapon of mass destruction? No, it’s not. No matter what purpose a technology is developed for, new technologies are bound to emerge from its processing and application. In this case, the technology may appear to be value-neutral. However, the process of adapting and evolving the technology to suit one’s own purposes creates new technologies. The dynamite used as a weapon of mass destruction cannot be a perfect match for existing dynamite, i.e., the dynamite used as a weapon of mass destruction and the dynamite used to build a tunnel are two very different technologies. Therefore, the dynamite used as a weapon of mass destruction is also a new technology for the purpose. This is not an exception to the first ground mentioned above.
After all, many problems arise when processing and improving existing technologies, unless the technology was started for evil purposes in the first place. In fact, it is very difficult for the inventor of a technology to determine how it will be processed and how much of an impact the new technology will have. It is also inefficient and unfortunate to be so afraid of the future that we fail to develop the technology we need today. Nevertheless, the process of considering its impact in advance is essential, which is ironic and difficult for those who develop technology.
The role of scientists in this process is crucial. After all, it is scientists who are developing the technology, and they know more about it than the public, so they should be able to make more insightful predictions. Therefore, they should be responsible for its use.
If we think about what scientists should do specifically, they should be wary of technologies that cause too many physical and chemical changes. These technologies are more likely to be abused because they can have a greater impact than more trivial technologies like chairs or clocks. Once vigilant, scientists must then draw the line at how far the technology should be developed, i.e., analyze where in the process of processing the technology would have a catastrophic impact. I believe this is the most important responsibility of a scientist. As I mentioned earlier, it is very inefficient to stop researching a technology because it has the potential to be exploited. Any technology in the world has the potential to be exploited, and while the potential may seem great, there are certainly unexpected ways it can be exploited. So it’s foolish to stop researching a technology because it has the potential to be exploited. The important thing is to set limits on the manipulation of existing technologies. For example, cloning technology enables gene-specific surgery, which is important for treating incurable diseases. Therefore, we should allow the development of cloning technology, but strongly discourage research that goes beyond the genome and into the “object” itself. The limits should be set by scientists who know the technology better than anyone else, and legal sanctions can be based on these limits.
Scientists should also organize themselves into associations or meetings to review how existing scientific research is progressing. This process is important because, first, discussions with scientists other than those working on the technology allow for a broader discussion of the impact or ramifications of the technology. Second, they can be vigilant against research with dangerous goals, but also against “aimless” research. In other words, the significance of a technology can be validated by others. I think this is important. As mentioned in the first rationale, technology is researched and developed with a purpose. However, some technologies can be researched ‘without purpose’. For example, combining genes from different organisms or creating chemical bacteria out of curiosity. Because such research is aimless, the consequences can be unforeseen, and the consequences can be unacceptable. It’s like how a don’t ask don’t tell murder or assault case is the most difficult problem for detectives to solve. If scientists are vetted by associations and others, they are more likely to stop these dangerous results before they happen.
It took humans 5,000 years to create fire. Within a century of developing aviation technology, humans built airplanes that could fly at the speed of sound, and more recently, smartwatches were developed less than a decade after the smartphone. The pace of progress in human civilization is increasingly rapid, and there is a danger that this rapid development will not be sufficiently scrutinized. In addition, as the level of technology has increased to the point where it has surpassed the human brain (we all know that “AlphaGo” has beaten humans with artificial intelligence), people’s wariness of technology and fear of its possible abuse has increased. As we live in an increasingly technology-intensive society, I expect the issue of value neutrality in technology development will become a hot topic in the future. I accept that technology is not value-neutral. However, I disagree with sanctioning all technologies that have the potential for evil values. I don’t want to impede the flow of an increasingly technologically empowered society, so I think the ideal would be for scientists to responsibly set limits on technological research so that we can develop technologies that are useful in our lives.
