This is a brand new paper. This one was a little bit of a labour of affection. It’s an evaluation of what it means to be a techno-optimist and the way one may defend a techno-optimistic stance. It’s due out in Philosophy and Expertise. I am going to publish the official model when it’s accessible. For now, I’ve posted hyperlinks to the ultimate prepublication draft.
Title: Techno-optimism: an analysis, an evaluation and a modest defence
Hyperlinks: Official; Philpapers; Researchgate
Summary: What’s techno-optimism and the way can it’s defended? Though techno-optimist views are extensively espoused and critiqued, there have been few makes an attempt to systematically analyse what it means to be a techno-optimist and the way one may defend this view. This paper makes an attempt to deal with this oversight by offering a complete evaluation and analysis of techno-optimism. It’s argued that techno-optimism is a pluralistic stance that is available in weak and powerful varieties. These fluctuate alongside a lot of key dimensions however every shares the view that expertise performs a key position in making certain that the great prevails over the unhealthy. No matter its energy, to defend this stance, one should flesh out an argument with 4 key premises. Every of those premises is very controversial and will be subjected to a lot of critiques. The paper discusses 5 such critiques intimately (the values critique, the treadmill critique, the sustainability critique, the irrationality critique and the insufficiency critique). The paper additionally considers doable responses from the techno-optimist. Lastly, it’s concluded that though robust types of techno-optimism are usually not intellectually defensible, a modest, agency-based model of techno-optimism could also be defensible.
The paper places ahead the next as an ‘ameliorative’ definition of techno-optimism:
Techno-optimism = A stance (set of beliefs, commitments, needs, intentions and many others) that maintains that expertise (broadly outlined) performs a key position in making certain that the great prevails over the unhealthy.
I’m much more exact about this within the paper, occurring to argue that techno-optimism is available in a wide range of completely different varieties which fluctuate alongside a lot of dimensions. A type of dimensions is whether or not the techno-optimist is presentist or futurist of their outlook: i.e. thinks expertise makes issues good proper now and/or will accomplish that sooner or later.
One among key options of the paper is the argument template I map out for any defender of techno-optimism. In brief, I declare that as a way to defend a techno-optimistic stance one should defend an argument with 5 key premises:
- (1) If (a) the great in all probability does or in all probability will prevail over the unhealthy and (b) if expertise in all probability performs a key position in making certain this, then techno-optimism is the right stance.
- (2) The possible present and/or future details are F1…Fn [Facts Premise]
- (3) The agreed upon worth standards for figuring out whether or not the great prevails over the unhealthy are V1…Vn [Value Premise]
- (4) The nice in all probability prevails over the unhealthy, given F1…Fn evaluated in gentle of V1…Vn [Evaluation Premise]
- (5) Expertise in all probability performs a key position in making certain that (4) is true [Technology Premise].
- (6) Due to this fact, techno-optimism is the right stance.
Totally different techno-optimists will flesh out these premises in several methods, significantly premises (2) – (4), that are the centrepiece of the argument.
One other key function of the paper is a radical evaluation of a few of the main objections to techno-optimism and the doable replies {that a} techno-optimist might make. The desk under summarises these objections and replies.
Clearly, I might encourage individuals to learn the entire paper for a fuller image.
