
Neil Postman, Technopoly, and Technological Theology - longdefeat
https://thefrailestthing.com/2011/07/25/neil-postman-technopoly-and-technological-theology/
======
geephroh
Postman was ahead of his time. Also worth checking out is his 1985 book,
"Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business."
Can't say we weren't warned...

~~~
vertline3
Agree, Amusing Ourselves to Death is really good. I like the idea about how
reading books impacts how deep we think. Also His comparison of the Lincoln
Douglas debates to modern presidential debates. Not a long read either, about
200 pages I think. I bought a copy from a bookstore closing, which fits the
theme of the book sadly.

------
Glench
If you're interested in this, you might also like Neil Postman's "5 Things We
Need to Know About Technological Change":
[http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/pos...](http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf)

~~~
bklaasen
This seems to be largely the same presentation:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlfPhsrvtw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlfPhsrvtw)

------
ilaksh
It seems like an important book. And good points. But practically speaking,
dismissing the entire culture as being technologically obsessed doesn't solve
the real problems that we have related to technology and its interaction with
society today.

I feel that a more useful definition for the word "technopoly" is to just to
refer to the (real and specific) monopolistic technology companies that we
interact with on a daily basis. Such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Uber, etc.
Maybe on a deeper level part of the reason they have become so large is the
"technopoly" that Postman is talking about. But in my opinion the more
practical use of the word is to point out these specific companies.

And I guess my surface reading of the premise is that technology is not the
only or the best framework for viewing the world. I will admit that I have a
technology-centric worldview. Well, technology just means applying our
knowledge to solving problems. In my opinion this is mostly sensible and
rejecting it does not create progress. My view is that what needs to improve
is our integration of technology into our social systems.

------
sewercake
The progression from technocracy to technopoly (and beyond?) reminds me of
Forster's famous short story _The Machine Stops_.

------
beat
Way back in the '90s, Postman was speaking at college. I was late getting
there, and ran into a close friend coming out as I was going in. I asked my
friend how it was so far, and he scowled and said "He's a cretin".

Now that I'm olde, I find myself occasionally agreeing with Postman. but
reading past the first paragraph here, I'm right back to "He's a cretin".
Sigh.

On the plus side, he makes an excellent bonfire out of the strawman he built.

~~~
Jtsummers
It may be that I'm tired and haven't really spent enough time processing this
article, but what about it gets you to "He's a cretin"? Any particular points
of Postman's that you'd call out?

~~~
beat
Adding to this, the original quote of “the submission of all forms of cultural
life to the sovereignty of technique and technology” is what makes me say
"cretin". Because it's BS. The degree to which technology is interfering with
culture is a real concern, yes. But "all forms of cultural life"? Nonsense. If
he could resist absurdist generalizations like that, he'd be a much more
valuable thinker. Instead, he's just telling people what they want to hear.

I just suffered through a brutal, dehumanizing call where I spent ten minutes
trying to convince a voice recognition bot to connect me to a human being.
That's part of Postman's negative world, for sure. But tonight? I'm going to
play music with a friend. We're recording some of his bass parts for an album.
That's cultural life, too.

And tomorrow? I'm going to an amazing concert, African singer Angelique
Kidjo's reworking of the Talking Heads' "Remain in Light" album. That album
exists because of technology. I found out about the concert because of
technology. I get to hear her because of technology. Technology (and by
"technology", I mean "stuff that wasn't invented yet when Postman was a kid"),
in this case _enriches the cultural experience_.

I remember seeing Postman bragging about how he uses a pencil rather than a
computer to write, because Technology Is Bad. That's not sophisticated. That's
a cretin. Pencils are technology, too. Paper is technology. The books he got
printed are technology. But he doesn't get it, because he's a cretin. For
Postman and his ilk, "technology" is "stuff that wasn't around when I was a
kid". And it's bad why? Because it's unfamiliar and uncomfortable.

Postman is just saying "Get off my lawn" in fancy academic language.

------
ilaksh
"The first idea is that all technological change is a trade-off. I like to
call it a Faustian bargain. Technology giveth and technology taketh away. This
means that for every advantage a new technology offers, there is always a
corresponding disadvantage. The disadvantage may exceed in importance the
advantage, or the advantage may well be worth the cost."

This is a very popular belief which I reject wholeheartedly. Certainly there
are often trade-offs in some way related to use of a technology, but it is not
a rule, and there is no correspondence. Despite the last sentence, framing
things dualistically like this provides quite a false sense of equivalence and
ambiguity. In the end its an over-simplification and on some level a rejection
of technology.

Rejecting technology means rejecting the application of knowledge. I have no
problem with criticizing the selection of technology or how it interfaces with
society, but rejecting technology outright leaves you with the same old
problems. And then you must rationalize about how your old problems were
better than your new ones. I would like those people to go back and live in
that state -- without ubiquitous running water, without flush toilets and good
sewage systems, with horse shit in the street, or live as a _biological_
computer where you spend 10 hours a day doing arithmetic.

~~~
cobbzilla
Where did you get the idea that anyone was suggesting rejection of technology?

The idea that all technology is 100% beneficial for all people with zero
downsides is just as ridiculous.

There is a third path, which has some nuance; if you're wearing tunnel-vision
blinders you might not see it.

