The Future Does Not Compute

Peter Edman

We’re getting ready for the revision of the forthcoming curriculum on technology after some very helpful feedback from our first pilot forum in September. 

The Future Does Not ComputeCoincidentally, Volume 75 of the Mars Hill Audio Journal arrived in my mailbox a few weeks back and its topics are salient to our revision work. In particular I found helpful a conversation that Ken Myers had with Steve Talbott, author of The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending the Machines in Our Midst. They talk about the way the technology we use affects the way we talk, and then the way we think. This is a very difficult subject to talk about.

In particular, computers are (necessarily?) incapable of dealing with abstracts and metaphors, but the deepest things about us are in what we cannot directly express, what comes through in the spaces between the words, the realm of scientific discovery and the spiritual life. Talbott uses the example of the phrase “love your enemies,” which says a lot to a human but its metaphor is such that any attempt to subject it to a computer translation into another language would fail miserably. Do we, then, stop using such phrases? Technology can be wonderful, but we need to make sure we do not allow it to trample the full expression of our humanity.

Overall, the conversation was very helpful in shaping my own thinking on how to express what we’re trying to accomplish with our new curriculum. If we do not have a real vision for what makes us human, for what a human being is and should be, then the technologies we use will supply one for us by their very limitations, and it will by definition be less than fully human. 

Fodder, Science and Technology, Tue 15 Nov 2005

Common sense is not so common.

Voltaire

Site Services

Search:

Advanced Search

Member Login

Join the Site

Forgotten your password?

Send this Article to a Friend

Print this Article

Print without Comments

Recent Articles

Lebanon on the Brink

A Cultural Manifesto and Showcase

Steep Trajectory

McClay at the White House

Johnston on Speaking of Faith

China, Tibet, and the Olympics

A Tale of Temptation for Our Times

A Brief Chat with Screwtape

Christ for Culture

Obama’s ‘Bitter’ Comments

Featured Resource

Cover image via AmazonOrthodoxy: The Romance of Faith by G. K. Chesterton.

On its 100th anniversary, this book is just as helpful and provocative as ever.

Gleanings Quick Links

Orthodoxy: Georgetown’s Father Schall reviews G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy on its 100 year anniversary. “In coming to believe in Christianity, Chesterton, as he tells us, did not read a single Christian book in the process. Rather, he read book after book of those who maintained that Christianity could not possibly be true. After he had read many of these tractates, he suddenly realized that the intellectual opponents of Christianity were constantly contradicting themselves about what they were opposing. Chesterton, the most logical of men, figured that anything so odd as to be opposed for the exact opposite reasons must either be quite strange or, in fact, rather normal and true.” A helpful introduction to a lovely book. (James V. Schall, SJ, InsideCatholic.com , 2008 05 05)

Where Were Obama’s Friends?: Friendship under fire: “As for the supersized candidates, what strikes one most about them is their ‘aloneness.’ They look so solitary. Indeed, it is possible that the old and honorable notion of ‘standing with’ a candidate like Obama simply didn’t occur to his famous supporters this week. Everyone has become used to watching celebrity stars and athletes take it in the neck on their own. Even someone running for the nation’s presidency looks like just another personal crack-up.” Makes one pause.  (Daniel Henninger, The Wall Street Journal , 2008 05 01)

There’s no way you’re going to convince me: Catholic professor Scott Carson covers the current debates on evil between N T Wright and Bart Ehrman on Beliefnet: “[H]aving had a look at this most recent exchange I have to say that it continues to astound me how simplistic and thoughtless the popular treatment of the problem has become. . . . It’s as if generations of sophisticated and complex theological and philosophical argument amount to nothing when compared to the emotional attitudes of a single individual living in a highly particularized time and place. . . . Just as atheists and agnostics are often—perhaps way too often—tempted to assume that believers only believe for emotional or psychological reasons, so too, it seems rather obvious to me, every non-believer almost certainly has emotional and psychological reasons for not believing that will trump any and every legitimate argument posed against them.” (extensive links from the article to the primary sources) (An Examined Life , 2008 04 27)

The Way We Weren’t: “The fifties really were a time when the culture broadly affirmed Christianity as a Good Thing. I was there. I saw it; I heard it. And yet some kind of demurral is strongly indicated: some sign of recognition that no human society, whatever its good intentions and methods, has lived unburdened, unencumbered by the crushing weight of human fallenness. Good as life may appear to have been in the cities and universities of France and Italy in the thirteenth century, or amid the sweaty fervor of the camp meetings in nineteenth-century America, or among the fierce faith of the emancipators, always human pride and general nuttiness were there to spoil the broth.” (William Murchison, in Touchstone , 2008 04 23)

Not on Sale (2008 04 14)
Seven New Deadly Sins, Suitably Updated (2008 04 10)
The Pope Comes to America (2008 04 09)
Both Read the Same Bible (2008 04 09)
Muslims Outnumber World’s Catholics (2008 03 31)

more . . .