The Tragic Irony of Technology
June 3, 2011
“Sanity often consists of knowing what not to think about.” K.W. Jeter
The exponential growth of cellphone use and especially of smartphone use in the last several years has made an obscure mineral called coltan one of the most valuable substances on earth. Coltan’s heat resistance coupled with its ability to hold an electric charge for a long time, make it an ideal component for electronics, and it consequently is used in almost all cellphones and many computers. Unfortunately, much of the world’s coltan comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it is hand mined by people who see almost none of the profit. The profit is split between mining corporations and para-military groups.
The irony I refer to in the title is that I know about this moral scandal, and am therefore enabled to be outraged, only because I possess the very coltan infested technology that makes me an accessory to oppression. I am made aware of oppression only by my participation in it. This points to the paradoxical ability of technology to connect us, making the whole world and all its problems available to my every click and tap (of the mouse), while simultaneously causing widespread isolation, oppression and–in a word–dis-connectedness. All this reminds me of Tony’s exquisite definition of original sin:
“…that structures of oppression, violence and rebellion against God are ‘already in place’ and work to form us as people before we are able to understand or critically resist them.”
Technology has become an integral part of our society. It obviously has the ability to help us make real and lasting connections with real people. A perfect example of this are the friends that I have made through this blog, most of whom I have never had any face-to-face interaction with. It is the very same technology that makes me aware and connects me to suffering people in the Congo. My knowledge makes me responsible to them, they have become my neighbors, and yet the very tool that allows me to connect with them as neighbors is partly responsible for their suffering. Oh Lord, how do we break free from the bondage that seperates us from each other and from You?
++++
Part of a (Long) Series of (Short) Posts about Science and Technology
The Tragic Irony of Technology Coltan, cellphones and being connected
Singularity, Progress, and Darwinian Common Sense Artificial Intelligence and Sciencism
Middleduction A post that would have made a nice introduction (coming soon)
Science Fiction as Prophetic Witness or Scientific Gospel? (coming soon)
Creating the Problem in order to Fix It (coming soon)
More on Sciencism (coming soon)
Kierkegaardian Dread (coming soon)
Which Comes First, the Religio-Ethical Chicken, or the Geo-Political Egg: An Inner Dialogue
April 22, 2010
What follows is a sort of dialogue with myself. In italics you will find the words of James the citizen of the United States, and in bold (because it’s more important) you’ll find the words of James the citizen of the Kingdom of God. This is not an attempt, of course, to speak definitively the words of the Kingdom, or even the proper opinions of a US citizen, rather this is a first attempt to disambiguate for myself where my opinions are coming from, and what foundation they ultimately have.
One of the things I am trying to work out here is whether my citizenship in the Kingdom of God actually determines my behavior as a citizen of the US, or whether it is the other way around. I am working off the premise that my committment to the Christian tradition and Christian ethics SHOULD determine my behavior always and in every way, and that any allegiance to a place, or that places’ history, culture and politics is ONLY important as much as it lines up with my commitment to Christ (A more controversial corollary is that all the things that make up the citizenship of any earthly kingdom SHOULD be held with a certain amount of detachment, if not suspicion by citizens of God’s Kingdom).
Again,
Italics= James, Citizen of the United States
Bold= James, Citizen of the Kingdom of God
– — – — –
I can think of two reasons why I am interested in politics and engaged in political discourse. 1. Self-interest. 2. I honestly believe that following Jesus demands I speak out and act for and against certain social issues that inevitably have a political element.
If anyone wants to be a member of the Kingdom of God, they must die to self.
President Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time. Far from breaking with Bush’s flawed and misguided (if not evil and totally corrupt) administration, the Obama administration seems to be a continuation of it. The warmongering continues. The torturing continues. The wholesale disregard of the common good for the sake of profit and power continues. In fact, the essence of the American presidency hasn’t fundamentally changed since…well, maybe it never has: democrat, republican, or whig, Catholic, or Protestant, the President of the United States has presided over atrocity after atrocity: the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment, the Atomic Bomb, wars or covert actions in the following places: Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Columbia, El Salvador, Mexico again (I’m talking about NAFTA), many other Central and South American countries, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, now Yemen, maybe Iran…and those are just the ones off the top of my head.
Christians are not to put their trust in earthly rulers, but in God alone. Christians do not believe in revenge. Christians do not believe that overcoming evil with evil is even possible, much less pleasing to God.
I almost sympathize with the Tea Party crowd. I say almost, because, if they are successful, they are going to put into place leaders whose moral compass will not be fundamentally different than either Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter, or…Nixon… or Roosevelt (take your pick)…or Jackson…or Jefferson…or…
I do not believe that any of these men had the best of interest of EVERY member of their country in mind when they made the most important and far-reaching decisions of the terms. I believe every one of them put power and money before the common good when making many history altering decisions.
There are ultimately several other reasons why I don’t quite line up with the Tea Party crowd.
In I Samuel 8, God warns the Israelites that if they get a king he will not have the common good of the people in mind. Even the best Israelite kings commit atrocities.
I, like the conservative faction of the US, am not a big fan of the healthcare bill as a matter of principle. However, to call it socialism is ridiculous and confusing (I am suspicious and at some level, somewhere, someone desires this confusion). The bill that creates billions of dollars in debt so that the government can subsidize millions of private insurance policies, thus enriching the very companies the politicians claim they want to change, is the essence of FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM, par excellence (to borrow Zizek’s favorite way of saying things).
Our government is not seeking and has never sought to bring capital and the means of production under its control. On the contrary, Capital has been in the process of bringing our government under control since the Industrial Revolution.
Jesus came and in direct defiance of Caesar Augustus claimed to be the Son of God. His early followers defied the empire by refusing to worship the emperor, and instead giving Jesus titles that by decree were only to be used by the Roman ruler: Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.
You cannot serve both God and Money.
I, like the majority of the conservative faction of the US, claim to take a PRO-LIFE ethical stance. However, pro-life means more to me than anti-abortion. I feel like you have to be pro-ALL-LIFE in order to use the term without becoming a hypocrite.
The Tea Party loses credibility when they a) complain about the national debt, then b) claim to be pro-life, then c) support war efforts that are costing our country 3 TRILLION dollars.
Jesus says, ”Love your enemy.”
I recognize that under secular political philosophy dating back to the Greeks, a government by definition has the right and the power to violently punish crime, and violently protect its own interest.
Paul recognizes the “power of the sword” in Romans 13. But, how can a Christian honestly adhere to the injunctions of Romans 12–do not take revenge, overcome evil by doing good, live at peace with all people, etc.–and still participate in earthly governments as described in Romans 13?
I’m not a Republican, or Democrat, or Independent, or a Libertarian. I am a Distributivistic, Anarcho-Liber-Agrarian Localist.
My association with Christ and His Church is really the only one that matters. I desire to follow Jesus in the world, awaiting His return to reconcile all Creation to Himself. I suck at it.
– — – — –
Discussion questions:
1. Do my religious views, including my hermeneutic(s), determine my political philosophy or is it the other way around?
2. How would one go about determining which comes first political views or religious ones?
3. How are my political views in my self-interest?
4. How are my religious views in my self-interest?
5. Whatever else anyone wants to ask or comment on.
Should Christians Own Bars? Now, What About Restaurants?
April 20, 2010
I had a rather lively discussion with some friends at work today. There was certainly a diverse group. There were RC’s, Jerry Falwell ”Liberty Way” types, American Baptists, Episcopalians, Non-denoms; so, it seems like all persuasions were present. Somehow, the topic of Christians or churches owning and running bars came up during lunchtime conversation. The standard arguments were made for and against the consumption of alcohol, but the fulcrum of the conversation remained stubbornly on whether it was morally right for Christians to run establishments that served alcohol. The line of reasoning that prevailed was the existence of a biblical injunction not to cause one’s Christian brother or sister to stumble. If a Christian should not live life in a manner that provides an opportunity for others to sin, they reasoned, then it was morally impossible for a Christian to own and run a bar.
I was thinking about the basis of their argument, and it seemed fair. Sure, the number of people who responsibly use alcohol vastly outnumber those that abuse it, but look at the trouble that those who abuse alcohol are actually causing for themselves and others. If you’re unsure about the costly nature of alcohol abuse check out an article from the Mayo Clinic, here. In fact, it is the general practice of the American Medical Association to recommend abstinence from alcohol, though some claim their “research” is biased and unscientific, here. The point for me, however, was not to argue the minutiae of whether a Christian can drink responsibly. The issue that stuck in my mind was that I think it is a fair argument to say that a Christian should not serve alcohol to those that abuse it.
Then a thought, an elaboration of the principle they hoped to employ in their argument, struck me. If it is unethical for a Christian to serve alcohol to an addict, is it also unethical for a Christian to serve huge portions of unhealthy, over-priced food to an addict? Should Christians own restaurants?
Think about it. Is there any longer any doubt that obesity has far surpassed alcoholism as a health epidemic? The Mayo Clinic has this to say about the obesity epidemic, here. The CDC names heart disease as the greatest contributing factor to death in the US, here. The American Heart Association says that obesity is one of the major contributing factors to heart disease, here. So, is it ethical, in the midst of a nationwide obesity epidemic (see this), for a Christian to own a restaurant?
Let the fight begin.
Well, I was waiting to throw this out until I worked up a polished essay on it, but the deeper I go the more I realize that that is going to take about 2 years (at least) of me reading continental philosophy(a task which I’ve only begun, which means I haven’t found a “bottom” ; I haven’t figured out just how deep I have to go), so, instead, I’m going to just list some of my ideas thus far, and see what you think.
Oh, and if you’re planning on seeing District 9, but haven’t, you may not want to read some or all of this post.
I few weeks ago I watched District 9, by the white South African director, Neill Blomkamp. It is a powerful movie, and has dominated my thoughts ever since. Below is a quick synopsis of the pertinent parts, but be warned that my description hardly does the movie justice.
Spoiler begins
An alien ship mysteriously parked itself above Johannesburg, SA. Millions of aliens were found on the ship aimlessly living in their own filth. A camp, called District 9 was created for them below the ship and all of the aliens were moved to it. Over the course of 20 years, the camp became a slum, and numerous violent incidents gave rise to serious hatred on the part of Johannesburg residents toward the aliens whom they refer to as ”prawns.” As one character notes, the aliens do have undeniable shrimp-like characteristics. A super-corporation called Multi-National United is tasked with managing the prawns and the action of the movie begins with the MNU’s decision to move the entire prawn population to a new camp outside of Johannesburg. A geeky beaurocrat, who happens to be the CEO’s son-in-law, is put in charge of handing out eviction notices to the entire alien population of Disctrict 9. While carrying out the task our protagonist beaurocrat comes into contact with an alien substance which begins changing him into an alien. When the transformation starts, he is promptly kidnapped by his own corporation, where he is forced to participate in disturbing experiments. It turns out, MNU’s real interest in the “prawns” is their weapons technology which the company seeks to duplicate and market. Their only setback is that the alien technology can only be utilized by the aliens. MCU’s evil scientists soon discover, however, that the protagonist can use the weapons because his DNA is in the process of becoming alien. Just before they begin harvesting his organs in the interest of harnessing his weapon-operating power, he escapes and seeks refuge in District 9. For most of the movie the protagonist has the same bigoted attitude toward the aliens that everyone else both within MNU and without have. But, as he becomes a prawn, and develops a friendship of sorts with one of them, his attitude slowly changes, until, in the climax of the movie, he is defends his alien friend against extermination at the hands of his father-in-law’s heartless company.
Spoiler Ends
Here are some of the ideas that this movie has inspired:
1. For the purposes of ethical conversation, all aliens in Science Fiction and specifically in District 9=the Other.
2. In order for the protagonist of the movie to “love” the Other, he had to become the Other. He was incapable of understanding or loving the Other as himSelf.
3. The movie can obviously be “read” as commentary on the South African struggle with apartheid. However, the alien ship could have been parked over 1939-era Germany, or over present-day Gaza Strip and the same symbolic power would have been achieved.
4. In a way, the protagonist’s transformation could represent the Incarnation. Christ put himSelf aside to become the Other (humanity), in order to redeem the Other. Redemption could not have taken place outside of the act of “becoming the Other” on Christ’s part.
5. In terms of Christian morality, the concept of the Other is equivalent to the Neighbor, especially in a globalized world in which one is forced (blessed?) to rub up against, to pay attention to people and cultures radically different than one’s Self so that everyone is one’s Neighbor. How can we truly understand and love our Neighbor, then, without becoming her/him? Globalism brings us together but we are still so far apart. I expect Zizek’s book on the Neighbor to be particularly enlightening/challenging on this point, hopefully it will be mine next week.
6. Following Cavanaugh, in the Eucharist I consume Christ, but in turn, I am consumed; I become more and more a part of Christ’s body. Through Christ’s act of becoming us (the Incarnation), He installed the way for us to become more like Him (the Eucharist). Since we share the Eucharist with the Universal Church which spans nations, continents and cultures, the Eucharist is the way in which each individual Self becomes the Other. If you’ll allow a little analogical liberty, the alien substance which changes the human protagonist of District 9 into an alien can represent the Eucharist which changes each of us into body of Christ, thus uniting us (whether we like it or not) with each Other.
What do you think? I’ve got about 30,000 pages of Levinas, Lacan, Bidiou, Zizek, Derrida, Critchley, Foucault and maybe some Milbank (and many more who I haven’t yet thought about or discovered) to read before I can bring this all together into some sort of cogency. Any suggestions?
Glenn Beck, Jim Wallis, and Social Justice
March 12, 2010
I was listening to the radio this morning. I was happy, I was sipping my coffee, and I was looking forward to a leisurely day. Then Jim Wallis came on the radio to discuss the latest antics of our national “village idiot,” Glenn Beck. apparently, Glenn Beck has taken it upon himself to out all of those heretical Christians that are perverting the Gospel with messages of social justice. In what has apparently become a personal vendetta against Jim Wallis and ministries like Sojourners,
Clearly what the church needs is more of Beck’s feel good, watered down, Christmas sweater wearing, capitalism in a “Christian wrapper” spirituality. My morning is shot. I spat my coffee at the radio in disgust, leisure as been replaced with indignation at Beck’s blatant and rampant misuse of the Evangelical right, and I am now irritated at how obnoxiously misdirected Beck really is (for the record, he may have overshot his religious base on this one – I know quite a few conservative Evangelicals that hold Wallis in high esteem).
Here is how Wallis suggests we respond to Beck. He wants you to go to his site and mail a personal message to Beck outing yourself. It reads:
I’m a Christian who believes in the biblical call to social justice.
I usually don’t get fired up about pundits, especially not provocateurs like Beck. Nonetheless, the man is a disease infiltrating the Christian “right.” I have signed the petition, and so should you. Sign It, Sign It Now! (please) :0)
I Made a Huge Mistake…
January 21, 2010
I walked into a picturesque local bookstore on the University campus and discovered, much to my surprise, a rather fine selection of historical the systematic theology. I walk by this place every day! Between this and Loome – the country’s largest used theological bookstore – I’m going to go broke!
Wilderness Style: Leviticus and Sex
January 5, 2010
Part of an ongoing series on Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America.
Is sex just for romance?
This is partially because so many of the prevailing concerns of the Priestly community no longer define our culture. It is undeniable that Leviticus betrays the social structures from which it is a product:
“The basic sociological unit in Israel was the ‘father’s house.’ It included three to five generations consisting of fifty to a hundred people living in close proximity.”- Jacob Milgrom, “HarperCollins Study Bible“
Thus Leviticus’ sexual ethic revolves around Progeny. The preocuppations with potential illegitimate offspring in the sex sections of the Holiness Code (18:1-18; 20:10-21) reflect these concerns. These prohibitions do not so much discuss adultery or incest—the great evils of which are presupposed—as the appropriation of heirs. The structure of these sexual laws concern an ancient familial hierarchy we no longer follow.
This shouldn’t mean that these Scriptures are no longer of any use to us but we should be careful when attempting to extract from them any rigid rules that stretch across time and culture.
From the short discussion above, we’ll recognize that two modern and competing visions of sex are equally foreign to the priestly writer:
1) the isolation of sex into ecstatic romantic sexual love between husband and wife as the primary goal2) the isolation of sex into an inconsequential biological event, with personal pleasure or the expression of “love” as the primary goal
These views have been pitched to us as equal and opposite with the idea being that we must choose between one or the other. However, a reflection on Leviticus should reveal this to be a false dichotomy.
Leviticus believes in a world of teeming harmony where the procreative energies of humankind coincide with those of the earth. At the center of this ideal is a theological statement of body and sex. Human physical intimacy is in fact ‘something’ for the priestly community—a designed phenomenon that will neither remain isolated from the other processes of creation, nor innocuous as a matter of arbitrary emotional expression.
In contrast, the modern scientific mind has broken sex down into it’s most elemental and thus observable state: how it affects the individual—a process that Wendell Berry criticizes in his discussion of the body and the earth.
“The division of sexual energy from the function of household and community that it ought both to empower and to grace is analogous to that other modern division between hunger and the earth. When it is no longer allied by proximity and analogy to the nurturing disciplines that bound the household to the cycles of fertility and the seasons, life and death, then sexual love loses its symbolic or ritualistic force, its deepest solemnity and its highest joy. It loses its sense of consequence and responsibility. It becomes “autonomous,” to be valued only for its own sake, therefore frivolous, therefore destructive—even of itself. Those who speak of sex as ‘recreation,’ thinking to claim for it ‘a new place,’ only acknowledge its displacement from Creation.”- Wendell Berry, “The Body and the Earth“
Both the “Traditional View” (an absurd distinction, given how recently it’s been articulated) and the “Secular View” (equally slippery but whatever) suffer from a false presupposition of sex as a primarily individual activity with the former arguing for certain restrictions on who/when etc… and the latter arguing for more license. The fact that this is the chief and most recognizable distinction between these two tumultuous and confusing powerhouses should give us pause!
From the point of view of the Levitical writer, sexual ethics—like all ethics—are discerned within the context of community and creation. In this sense, the condemnations of Canaanite customs (18:19-23; 20:1-6) are integrally connected to the land-focused warnings (18:24-30; 20:22-24). Unholy behavior by humankind—both as a community and as individuals—not only compromises the presence of God amongst his people but risks defiling the land (18:24).
“Given this witness, the exhortations in Leviticus 18 and 20 are freighted with urgent concerns; if they are not heeded, creation itself is jeopardized.”- Samuel E. Balentine, “Leviticus“
Sexual norms and family structures continue to shift in modern culture as they have throughout history. However our communities decide to discern these tangled issues, the testimony of Scripture reminds us that our sexual lives are not lived in a vacuum. Rather, it is a beautiful vision of natural harmony that our most intimate human relationships are designed to image the creator God.
|
||||||||||
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
