How Should We Then Code?

A short while ago I discovered Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live? videos on the web.
I still find much of it a powerful perspective on history, even if the story telling is a little dated. But as he gets closer to our own times (1977) I think the presentation becomes a little less accurate and his last episode shows how problematic prediction is.

Curiously, in his last episode he puts forward the view that the only answer for future societies in the absence of 'the Christian consensus'.is for an elite to dictate ethics. This has obviously been shown to be wildly wrong. We don't have an elite as an arbiter of certainty. In the post modern world, we have the very opposite, a completely fragmentary view of reality and truth. But it is the role of technology in making that prediction so wrong which is of course interesting. Schaeffer and others thought that the coming technological age would enhance the power of the powerful technocrats - and in someways this is true. But what the futurists were completely blindsided by was the opposite - the fragmentation of power. Social media, the disaffection with spin etc and now a fair percentage of the population who will believe anything so long as it is opposite to the elite they don't like. Societies are it seems immensely adaptable and so it seems the conditions for collapse based on the lack of a moral consensus are not valid yet. Social media allows simultaneous fragmentation and a gluing together of societies.


And this is a point that has been said a little bit but is generally under appreciated - technological trends are somewhat predictable for a period of 10-20 years but social trends in general not just in relation to the technologies are to a much higher degree uncertain. 

But the question Schaeffer asks is an eternal one: How Should we Then Live?
Or to put a modern spin on it How Should We Then Code?

Some time ago Ethos Australia published a thought provoking article: Hold Your Nerve And Do Nothing by Steve McAlpine . Of course the point of the article is not to do nothing, but it is to do nothing less than to be the community of believers the New Testament envisions. It is a great article and one that is definitely worth reading. 

Galatians 5 states:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. .... 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

In churches we spend most of our time reading the theology of the New Testament, but as I discover some of the literature on the new testament church, I get more inspired for my own living. There is much that we can should change to be better witnesses, but probably nothing as important as being genuinely people of faith.

How shall we code, the same way we work as bankers and entrepreneurs as homemakers and artists. We need to be people of integrity, a people who care for others, a people belonging to God. Lets not get to fussed up about the future. As Schaeffer shows, the business of prediction is precarious.

Church as an organisation and the changing labour market

Over here, in another blog I write, I wrote recently of emerging patterns of work. I focused on drawing a distinction between people employed in jobs and people employed to do a task.

Jobs I defined as being for an organisation either for a specified period or indefinite and which comes with a set salary and benefits. Often they are associated with a career path. Societally, jobs are associated with high wages and health outcomes.

Tasks, on the other hand is an emerging class of work at the other end of the scale. Beyond the point of consultants that going fishing for work, at rates of pay that are survivable tasks are single discreet packages of work. Mechanical Turk is the current extreme example of outsourcing tasks at, for the most part, an extremely low rate. However, there are other platforms emerging to outsource 'tasks' and each task may be at quite low pay rates.

Now I understand that there will be a group of people this pattern may well benefit, but at the level of the economy it is problematic as a recent Economist article revealed in discussing massive global youth unemployment.

But I'll also want to repeat what I said in the other blog - it maybe that certain cities keep producing jobs with only a marginal creation of tasks activities while other cities will produce a much higher percentage of task activities. You need to be discerning about your environment.

In this blog I want to focus on the impact on churches. This is not about good or bad it is just about change at this stage.

Changing church finances. Middle class city churches in the West have generally been able to afford a middleclass lifestyle. A building, at least one Pastor and often some help and then maybe a little bit of paid administrative help. Now obviously, many Churches do better than this and some that do worse. Now for those cities or regions that trend towards a task economy it is possible that many churches will no longer afford a building or pastor.

Attitudes. Protestant churches still largely affirm the Protestant work ethic of: get a job! This may not be so possible in the near future at least for task regions. Entrepreneuring your way to an income will be tougher and more taxing.

Church demographics.   Again middleclass churches often had quite high employment levels, and good education backgrounds - not necessarily tertiary but skilled and high school completions. But if jobs begin to get harder to get we will see a growing rich poor divide in our churches between those who work hard at piece work tasks and those that are somewhat more secure.

Church leadership. I think  it is still pretty common for churches to have hierarchical leadership structures of a small leadership group (board, council or deacons) and then committees etc. As workplaces flatten their structures people have less experience and less desire to work hierarchically so we will need to flatten our church structures. After all the we have been democratising and flattening church structures since the middle ages as we became familiar with parliaments and private organisation of work.

Just a few thoughts to mull over......are you already seeing this in your church?

Heidegger and his contemporaries: their time, their views

For a long time I was interested in linking Christian faith and with an understanding of modern technology but I didn't know how to connect the dots. My world was science and technology policy and economics of new technologies and thus how technologies get used. But where did being Christian fit?

The Christian technology world seemed the complete opposite not at all connected to the 20th Century but instead, all about philosophical understandings of technology. I was unsure about the philosophies and the people behind both in terms of their belief structures and whether they were Christian. I had heard names such as Heidegger; but where they Christian or just adopted by some Christians, why were they SO important?

Then I moved to Vancouver and starting meeting absolutely great people like Rosie Perera, Wan-Phek How at Regent, Derek White from New Zealand, Dave Stearns at SPU. Then John Dyer's fabulous book came out a couple of years ago. All of these people engage with technologies in their jobs with genuine faith and struggle for combining the two. I have begun to connect the dots.

I am still a bit of the odd one out it seems, but I have a better sense of where I fit. But there is that nagging doubt that at some point I have to start reading the 'philosophers', but who were they, what was shaping their worldview? As I was taught when reading the Bible: text without context is a pretext.

So it is important to me to know something about the people before I read what they wrote. Luckily for me, it seems if you wait long enough something brilliant shows up.
http://the.sagepub.com/content/111/1/19.abstract
Technology and modernity: Spengler, Jünger, Heidegger, Cassirer

by David Roberts in Thesis Eleven August 2012 vol. 111

This is a must read.

Spengler, Jünger, Heidegger, Cassirer were all German technology philosophers we can call them situated between the two world wars. That in itself is very significant - the fervent of; military defeat, economic turmoil and re-emerging power. It is little wonder that there a desire to understand the technological age. Roberts summarises briefly the views of each of these four in turn, and though you probably won't agree with much of the viewpoints of at least Spengler and Junger there is valid insights and gems..

Spengler is summarised by Roberts:

Spengler’s summary application in Man and Technics of Nietzsche’s Will to Power to the whole of animal and human history is of the crudest kind. Starting from the premise that technology is to be grasped as ‘the tactics of living’, Spengler’s ‘Contribution to a Philosophy of Life’ amounts to the bald assertion that life itself is identical with conflict (Spengler 1940: 10). No less than economy, war or politics, technology expresses the one active, fighting, and charged life’ (1940: 11) – ‘life, indeed, in the Nietzschean sense, a grim, pitiless, no-quarter battle of the Will-to-Power’ (1940: 16). [p21]

But he has one point that stood out to me:

The tragedy of the West is inherent in the Faustian drive to tame and harness the energies of nature. Not only has Faustian man mechanized and devastated nature (‘we cannot look at a waterfall without mentally turning it into electric power’; 1940: 94), he has been enslaved by his creations (‘The lord of the World is becoming the slave of the Machine, which is forcing him – forcing us all, whether we are aware of it or not – to follow its course’; 1940: 90). [p21]

I love that line ‘we cannot look at a waterfall without mentally turning it into electric power’ - so true.

Junger, is not too different. Junger’s model of freedom and order is the army, not the social contract. The army knows neither individuals nor the mass, dismissed by Junger as the twin faces of the identity of democracy and anarchy that characterizes the Weimar Republic. [p23].

It is difficult to detect from Roberts whether Spengler and Junger wanted the militaristic style technological age or just saw it as inevitable. So lets turn to more interesting writers; Heidegger and Cassirer.

Following some very nice prose that helps to unwrap where Heidegger is coming from he gets to this point which was a rather ah ha moment for me.

In the enframed world of completed metaphysics nothing less than ‘the leap back into the source’ can restore to art its original powers of poetic revealing. Heidegger’s silent distinction in ‘The Question concerning Technology’ between poetry/poiesis and modern ‘literature’, that is, between authentic art and the ‘business of culture’, is therefore just as crucial to his argument as the explicit distinction between techne and modern technology. Modernity can be redeemed only by the original saving power of the Greek source, even though the will to will as the will to power revealed by enframing springs from the destining progressively unfolded in Western metaphysics since Plato. In ‘The Question concerning Technology’ Heidegger is asking in what way modern technology is like but also unlike art, a question which is pushed into the background if we focus solely (as reception mostly has) on Heidegger’s reading of the essence of technology as enframing. Moreover, by reducing the essence of technology to enframing Heidegger obscures his own more fundamental and original question concerning what art and technology have in common: unconcealing as a way of revealing that brings forth and makes present. I do not wish to deny the power of Heidegger’s interpretation of modern technology. Enframing is clearly an ever present danger in our technological
civilization. What I do want to argue is that the price of Heidegger’s totalizing reductionism is too high. We need to unframe Heidegger’s question because he closes rather than discloses the question of the essence of modern technology and modern art. [p29].

Lastly, lets us turn to Cassirer, somebody I had not come across before reading this article.

We need to recognize, Cassirer says, not only language as the ‘tool of the spirit’ but equally the ‘spirit of the tool’ at work in technology. The word and the tool represent the two fundamental acts of the grasping of reality, by which humans give form to the world. The giving of form is an active process: speech involves a genuine act of world-creation, tools open up the possibility of a new aspect or dimension of the world (Cassirer 2004: 8–9). Cassirer argues that the use of tools signified a break with magical practices but also continuity: ‘All ‘‘real’’ actions, if they are to succeed, need . . . a magic preparation and anticipation. A war or plundering expedition, fishing or hunting can only succeed if each phase is anticipated magically and as it were ‘‘rehearsed’’’ (p. 11). To anticipate and rehearse is to picture to oneself, to make an image, to imagine what could or should happen. (Heidegger’s distinction between the revealing ‘fore-knowledge’ of poiesis [Heidegger 1993: 319] and the objectifying world-picture of the modern subject may be read as a critique of and correction to Cassirer.) [p29-30\]

Then this rather dazzlingly brilliant point for something written in the 1930s. 

If, with Schiller, we think of art as a ‘second creator’ of humanity, then with Cassirer we must think of technology in the same fashion, not only in respect of material culture but equally in respect of the self-reflection and self-knowledge technology gives rise to. Each new aspect of the world revealed by the use of tools opens up a new aspect of our inner world. [p30]
...

If Cassirer offers us a modern answer, it is not one premised on a distinction between ancient and modern technology. On the contrary, the very first use of tools set in train an ongoing process of revealing as unconcealment, that is, the uncovering of what is present but hitherto concealed in the world. The nature waiting to be shaped and given form by technology is thereby revealed as essentially incomplete. From the beginning technological ‘discovery’ signifies the experimental path of formation and transformation mediated by the essential plasticity of nature. The spirit of technology therefore resides for Cassirer in its capacity to reveal the latent in nature, waiting to be actualized. [p31].


And on this point I will leave Roberts' article for you to read, which I do encourage.

But that last point by Roberts on Cassirer, that is a point I can sink my teeth into. If over twenty + years of watching technological developments there has been one overall impression it has not been how clever we as humans have been at building digital devices (sorry, my friends), no, it has been that the still emerging science and technologies that will help us over the next hundred years. We can use biological mechanisms to build houses in the desert sands of Africa, we are still finding new ways of increasing solar panel efficiencies - long after it was deemed a dead end and so on and so on. As we develop new technologies we discover new things in nature that help us build the next generation of technology. The wealth of technology in the biological world seems limitless, if we can but point our own technologies to benefit mankind and not its destruction. That is not to say other domains of nature such as physics don't come to play but it is the biological world that fascinates me.

It is always dangerous to pin yourself to a particular philosophy, but if the depiction by Roberts of Cassirer is accurate then it seems to me that as Christians there is much to explore here. Creating a worlview based on distinction between pre and post industrial revolution technologies is I believe seriously problematic. Watch any archaeological tv program and it is totally evident how technologically driven some of ancients societies were. In a recent program by Neil Oliver http://www.neiloliver.com/tv_and_radio.html he described the coming of the Romans to Britain as something a kin to an invasion from outer space. Some of Britain was in the bronze age but not all of it. The Romans brought the latest technology including glass which they could use in buildings for windows thus keeping them much warmer. They had central heating for their more important buildings etc etc. 

Yes we are living in a period of rapid technological change but these have happened before. 

Faith Hope and Love

Awhile back I was listening to Genevieve Bell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genevieve_Bell from Intel talk on ABC's Future Tense about how the internet is used http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/2012-09-09/4241754 and how people become afraid of technology when it dislodges current perceptions of time, space and relationships. She discusses how the Japanese and American cultures perceive robots very differently based on the stories told in their respective societies about robots

I am neither a utopian nor disutopian futurist as I believe there will be strong elements of good and bad over the longer time span - and just like in the past there may be long periods of bleakness and long periods of better times (decades or centuries in each case).

But it makes me think that it is an urgent job of Christians to point out that our "hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name" 

(Edward Mote - The Solid Rock').

Technology use and the local church

Last year I attended the Digital Society conference hosted by Seattle Pacific University. It was very well organised and a great line-up of speakers. One thing I was particularly interested in was whether churches had established policies for the use of social media now that we need to be conscious of privacy etc. Anyway there wasn't any clear answer. But I have been thinking of other issues with small community churches as well.

In my local church we have been pretty minimalist in terms of our new wave technology use. We have a reasonably good website, we now have mp3 downloads of the sermons and we have a facebook page

I wonder if it would be possible to build a document or spreadsheet of the trade-oofs in adopting particular technologies.

The sort of thing I have in mind is:

Electronic newsletters save trees but what percentage read them over printed newsletters.

We use powerpoints for the songs - bigger clear type, voices project to the front etc but that discourages use hymn books with the actual printed notes and even though I have never learnt to sing properly my singing is better when I see the notes.

As we drift to powerpoint we lose intimacy and spontaneity. Churches on occasions would have Sundays where the congregation could choose the songs, that rarely happens now.

As McLuhan observed technology has four effects so ask these questions:

What does the medium enhance?

What does the medium make obsolete?

What does the medium retrieve that had been obsolesced earlier?

What does the medium flip into when pushed to extremes?

Is it possible then as we adopt new technologies in Church to find ways of not losing some of the old practices that people enjoy and benefit from?

This isn't necessarily about good and bad but developing a mix that caters for people and can have some healthy effect. So if every six months we had an unplanned service would that have the healthy effect of being an antidote to the professionalisation of Church service presentation - which was itself brought about by some of the unhealthy freeform practices that bordered on the unprepared and chaotic?

Lessons from a PhD on technological innovation for a blog on theology

A PhD is a hard way to learn a simple lesson. Today there are so many gifted people in the world and there is so much access to the means of communication that if you want to be a thinker / analyst / researcher or generally a contributor to a topic then it becomes far easier if you have a niche and can summarise it in a sentence or 2. That niche can have a broad impact but it needs to be specific enough that you can read much of the relevant material floating around.

So then the question for me becomes what is mine in that space that links Christian theology and technology.

In my research work that stems from my PhD I am interested first in how technology industries tend to locate themselves in particular cities around the world (this is a huge area of study) but second, and this is my speciality, is how these clusters of activity are linked to clusters in other cities - sometimes across the globe.

My consulting work on the other hand has focussed on understanding the value of research. At it simplest, governments increasingly want to know their return on investment on research programmes - which is a rather complex idea - but this what I have done some work on.

But what is it that I want to contribute in the field of faith?

The primary topic I feel calling me is the issue of big change and the response of Christians. It seems that we are in the era of large changes in three interdependent mega systems. Global economic structures with the growing power of Brazil, Russia India, Indonesia, China (and possibly South Africa?) [the BRIIC(S)] are changing our world. However, the natural resource base to support that shift is uncertain - this isn't just climate change but ecosystem sustainability and natural resource supply. Co-dependently, there is undoubtedly impressive gains still to be made in the 'second economy' - everything digital but there is massive pent up demand for breakthrough in mechanical and physical technologies (agriculture, transport, energy, housing etc).  Thirdly, social inequality has been growing substantially even in advanced economies and that is seriously problematic in the long term.

These three interlocking systems are coming to prominence at a time when the Church in the west is increasingly weak. Can we as Christians be relevant and speak prophetically (which is not wacko predictions) or will we be characterised by cultural subversion and national interests? Can we take the opportunity that post-Christendom gives us and speak up not in power but with a voice that speaks for the voiceless.

The second topic which I am interested in but feel I could better encourage than lead is; we need collaborative project to sort out some down to earth practical technological choices at the local Church level.  We need to help individuals with real help in their daily lives.

Third, from my perspective as economist/innovationist with some breadth and depth on the subject of the dimensions of our technological societies I want to encourage a engagement with technology that does not limit the word to electronics or biotechnology. Our societies are profoundly technological from the sewerage systems and electricity supply to cars and roads and then to the administrative institutions which sape our lives. We need to open our eyes to the physical and metaphorical layers of technology in our lives.

How savvy and sceptical we have become

There was quite another article on the ABC (Australia) website lately on the emerging technology of drones or UAVs as they are also called. These along with the google car might have been the hyped technology of 2012.

The article itself is a bit over-cooked. Here is a taste...


Today's hobbyist's plaything is tomorrow's gadget for the rest of us. As the cost of a drone drops below a hundred dollars, we'll see them used everywhere. Their mounted cameras will give us eyes in places we can't reach easily ourselves, and will find countless industrial uses. We may not have personal jetpacks, but we will be able fly with our eyes.

Suddenly we can see everything, everywhere. We are stumbling into the Age of Omniscience almost accidentally, and before we know it there will be no place, high or low, where we can not be seen.
This will vex celebrities first - think of the helicopters that hover over every important event; now imagine them as quadcopters, in their hundreds and thousands. Within the next year, a jealous husband will be able to hire a private detective to track his wife by drone, and be able to witness her comings and goings for himself.

Creepy men will stalk their ex-girlfriends by drone, leading to an expansive application of restraining orders to cover 'personal airspace'. The right not to be seen will be debated in the courts, the public sphere, and on the floor of Parliament. It will all come to nothing, overwhelmed by an emerging army of cheap drones.



But what caught my attention is the comments, as always a combination of the shallow, the fearful and the insightful. Not so very long ago the patterns of technology - the early hype, the slow delivery, the reduced expectations of the emerging products and the unintended consequences were not topics widely discussed and poorly understood.

Now we know that almost anything made for good or ill can be reconfigured to serve the other purpose. What's more the general public knows it.

But the question is - as we have have improved the awareness of technology's 'issues' in the general public - there is much more scepticism than there used to be, BUT how do we now  use that to 1. raise the profile of the moral issues around technology and 2. actually force this debate back into the sphere of the makers to get better thinking through of technologies as they are created.

The tired well worn pattern of comments like those below are both seeds of hope and the fruit that can feed despondency and anomie. We need to raise the horizon of the vision somehow. Technology is our creation and we are responsible for it - not someone else we are all responsible.

• Yes. This is the scary part!
  Now, ANYBODY can have one.
  
  
  28 Dec 2012 1:52:59pm
  Sorry to be practical and disrupt the techno-wow ... with a sky full of drones how will crashes be avoided? For the current 'planes we limit the skies and control what kind of 'planes can fly. I imagine we'll do the same for drones. That will mean regulation and that regulation will undoubtedly limit the kinds of uses you can make of drones in much the same way we limit the kinds of uses and places you take your terrestrial vehicle - you can't yet get a private license to drive your tank down the local street, deliver a pizza and fire off a few shells!
  
  
• 28 Dec 2012 1:47:57pm
  The implications of what you are writing about are well explored in an Arthur C. Clarke book I am reading at the moment, 'The Light of Other Days'. It is about the invention of the 'WormCam', a wormhole technology that allows constant surveillance, even across time. Personally, I find the book to be milking its theme, the ramifications of a technological breakthrough, perhaps a little too much, but it is still an interesting read. Did you read it yourself
  
  
• 28 Dec 2012 1:28:17pm
  So how long before we start getting these things dropping bombs or balloons of acid or something nasty in suburban Aussie streets? The one that eventually does it in Australia will be easily tracked and have a traceable serial number wont it? I mean it's little more than a toy with weapons capability, I'm positive after any terrible event we all will know exactly where the pilot was located, why they did it and when the next one will happen....Wont We? With several thousand of them soon in Aussie skies I'm sure the Government is monitoring each unit very carefully. (insert wry laughter here) Fortunately in Australia there are no people with evil intent, bitter breakups or downright stupidity...

• 28 Dec 2012 12:25:04pm
  Time to dust off the air rifle. The homeowners version of 'tank plinking'. And I thought that just getting rid of the Indian Mynas could provide the kiddies with endless entertainment...
  Alert moderator
  
  
• 28 Dec 2012 12:22:52pm
  To take one aspect of this debate (there are many) If shots of people skinny dipping or sunbaking nude around their backyard pool becomes common such shots will loose their clout (for whatever reason). People adapt, any initial indignation will be replaced by "so what" by most.