I used to think there was continuity between tools and technologies through the different eras of human invention. I now think the same and in addition, that Andy Crouch doesn’t seem to understand power and energy. Wheels work on the basis of gravity, plants grow on the basis of nuclear fission in the sun, etc. We have always used the power inherent in creation to steward it for good or ill. I wonder whether anyone has pointed this out to him.

I used to think that technological devices don’t have autonomy and I still think that, but I acknowledge that it can feel that way to the user. I think it is fascinating how easy it seems to be to mimic autonomy and morality. I wonder what we learn about anthropology from our strong tendency to anthropomorphise inanimate devices. I do not have a roomba, but I do have a robotic lawnmower and it is genuinely the best thing ever. My brother’s children call it Lucy, but I have never understood why. It’s just a machine.

I used to think that technological devices shape the way we interact with the world and each other and I still do. I think there are instances where this has had unintended negative consequences - his example of central heating - and instances where the intended consequences turned out to be negative - losing the ability to memorise. But I am not convinced that he has selected fairly representative examples. What about the unintended positive consequences and, indeed, the intended positive consequences of technologies such as vaccines, sewerage systems, and so on? I wonder whether he is carefully selecting examples to make a point which is not so neatly supported by other evidence.

His distinction between ‘devices’ and ‘instruments’ seems flimsy to me. It’s about the directness or indirectness of human involvement. That is not a cut and dried scale. The roomba stops working if I switch it off. It doesn’t work at all if the designers and manufacturers do it wrong. I’m not sure that is qualitatively different from the complex scientific instruments he is describing.

But I do think his final point in section 1 about technology being able to increase human flourishing is right, and this is the kind of technology we should seek. Not having to do my own hoovering would allow me to flourish much more!

Section 2

I used to think (at the end of section 1) that I would disagree with Crouch about everything but I now think he is mostly right in this section, but not always for the reasons I would give. Humans are humans and machines are not (I wonder whether machine is a more helpful term than robot, tbh, because it is immediately less anthropomorphic.) I would not distinguish this in terms of intelligence, although Crouch does get to the point where he sees that human intelligence is not merely reasoning but relational. I would say that our main differences (which all stem from being in God’s image) are moral, relational and spiritual. Artificial reasoning is far beyond human reasoning, because we are all unreasonable due to the noetic effects of sin.

Section 3

I used to think that sin is sin and it reasserts itself in every generation in new ways that are, in fact, the same old ways. People have always been driven by ‘magic and mammon’, even in Christendom - the mediaeval church was full of both. I am not really convinced that the rise of alchemy is directly related to the development of the slave trade, so much as that both are symptoms of the same universal sins of greed for money and power. Yes, much of the rise of technology is driven by both of these, but it is also driven by the desire to improve human life, and to battle the brokenness of the world. I wonder why Crouch doesn’t examine these kinds of technological developments too.

He ponders what technology could have been were we to rewrite history and laments the way technology stops us now doing certain things. I found this interesting but wasn’t sure what it adds to his first judgement.

J2 It was refreshing to hear a future with technology without a doomsday looming. I agree with him. I think his argument is convincing when considering the complexity of our brains over computers.

J3 He challenges our world’s view that technology somehow holds or will hold a magical silver bullet for all our problems.