Science, technology, and ethics

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has stimulated discussions about its potential value and dangers. Before engaging in discussions about AI specifically, it is worth making some general observations about the relationship between science, technology, and ethics.

In the discussion that follows, you might consider how it relates to concrete examples such as screwdrivers, guns, washing machines, cars, smartphones, or AI. They vary greatly in their capability, impact, scope of application, and interaction with our humanity.

Science is not technology. Science and engineering are different academic disciplines. Science and technology are distinct, albeit interrelated, entities. Science is concerned with describing the material world and understanding of how it works. Technology is concerned with controlling it. Technologies are tools, machines, and devices that may make human life easier or better. Note that deciding what is "better" is a subjective judgement and involves human values. Furthermore, one technology may make life better for some people and worse for others. Because science and technology are not the same, important distinctions need to be made and are discussed below.

Scientific knowledge is neither necessary nor sufficient for the development of technology. Steam engines were developed before the science of thermodynamics, which describes how they work. Nikola Tesla was a brilliant inventor. But many of his beliefs about physics, and particularly the science of electromagnetism were wrong. Large Language Models (LLMs) work extremely well, but we have a poor understanding of why they work so well. On the flip side, scientists and engineers file endless patents for possible new technologies that never come to fruition. The problem is not that the science is wrong, but it is not possible to build viable, let alone commercially viable, devices. For example, we understand the science behind how a quantum computer will work, but building a useful one remains elusive.

Scientific understanding sometimes leads to improvements in existing technology and the development of new technologies. However, there is no guaranteed connection. Sometimes tinkering or intuition is enough to make progress. Scientists commonly use the prospect of new technologies (and the associated potential economic benefits) in their arguments for the public funding of their research. Consequently, scientists, their institutions, and the government agencies that fund them may be reluctant to acknowledge that the science-technology link is not as strong as sometimes claimed.

Technology shows that science works. There are laws of nature. Nature acts in predictable and repeatable ways. Thousands of planes fly safely every day. Most phones will probably work for years. If many of the laws of physics were wrong, a lot of technology would not work. On the other hand, let me be intellectually cautious. Some technologies may work for reasons different from the currently accepted scientific explanation. For example, the explanation of how a specific drug works may change with time. 

The power of technology should inspire awe and wonder at the way the world works, our ability to understand it, and to manipulate it.

What effect does technology have on our relationship with the world?

This question is important because our answers may have a significant influence on our views on the ethics of specific technologies. Broadly speaking, there are three different perspectives.

Instrumentalism. Technologies are just material artefacts that we can use to do stuff. They are not human. They have no agency and so don't affect us or the world.

Determinism. Technology is not neutral. It can have a powerful influence on us and society. It can control or alienate us individually or as a society. 

Mediation. This is a compromise between the extremes of the other two views. As an individual uses a technology, it mediates between them and the external world. Consequently, it can influence the individual and the world, for better or worse. It may change how the individual experiences, perceives, or understands the world.

Ethics: Is a technology intrinsically neutral, good, or evil?  

For any technology, people may advocate one of three moral perspectives. 

Neutral. A technology itself does not do anything. It is just a thing. It has no agency. It has no morality. Only people have agency and morality. They can choose to use the technology for good or evil. This tends to correlate with technological instrumentalism.

Good. By definition, technology makes human life easier or better. Furthermore, history shows this. Consider the significant improvements in human health and prosperity that have come with more technology. The creation of technology also reflects human creativity and the desire to improve the lives of others.

Evil. Given humans' propensity for greed, violence, and domination, it is inevitable that any technology will be used eventually by some people for destructive purposes. This tends to correlate with technological determinism.

To illustrate the moral ambiguity associated with how scientific research can lead to technology, consider the Harvard organic chemist, Louis Fieser. He discovered both antimalarial drugs and napalm. The former has saved countless lives, while the latter has been used in chemical warfare.

The neutral position is helpful if it leads us to focus discussions on good and evil ways a specific technology is used or might be used. It is unhelpful if used to avoid ethical discussions.

Most technologies have good uses and bad uses. The extent to which some uses are good or bad varies greatly between different technologies. We also need to evaluate the likelihood of good or bad outcomes, often unanticipated. The impacts of a technology are multifaceted. They include health, environmental, social, economic, and political impacts.

Our view of humanity shapes our view of technology

Those with a positive view of humanity tend to also be positive about technology. They are optimistic about people's ability to choose to use a technology for their own good and that of others. Any problems can be minimised or solved.

However, if you think people have a propensity for greed, abuse, addiction, and deception, you will be wary about technology.

A Christian perspective on humanity affirms both the goodness and depravity of humanity. We are made in the image of God and have the potential for creativity, personal agency, and benevolence. On the other hand, we are sinful and broken and the potential for evil. This is a dialectic. Different Christians and traditions have differing views of just how good or evil we are. That may shape their views about technology.

Enlightenment worldviews matter

Several beliefs characteristic of the Enlightenment lead to a positive and optimistic view of technology and to opposition to placing limits on its use. These beliefs include the following.

Optimism in progress.

All problems are solvable in principle.

Humans are emancipated and autonomous individuals.

The history of the impact of technology suggests we should question these claims.

Negative consequences of technology should not be used to criticise science. Science did not create these problems. Humans created them as a result of choices about how to use the technology.

In future posts, I hope to discuss questions we should ask about technologies and then use them to consider AI.