Ask Lemmy

Lol yeah, it's kind've just how I am I think. I think anthropology and philosophy are important and that everybody should be exposed to them early on in life. I've heard interesting counter arguments against universal public exposure, and I definitely agree that having everybody think the same thing is bad. But I think something needs to be done about the universally low level of consideration just in general. Think of how much more cool shit we could come up with if we put everybody's minds to it! (And how many fewer shitty people there would be!)

I actually explicitly went out of my way to not read the dictionary definition. I think that semantically those definitions are important as pillars, But I also think it important for us as humans to... Occasionally reassess the state of the wheel from the ground up, so to speak.

I think it's important to look at it from a human perspective, and that's kind of what a psychology/philosophy/anthropology/sociology/perspective is, rather than what I will reductively call a slave/tool-mindset of simply focusing productivity and tools, math-and-science above existentialism-and-morality. In other words, I think it's of utmost importance to keep in mind what the tools do and how they serve us, both in the small immediate picture, but also the larger grand scheme of things.

So if you wish to limit the definition of technology to those things, then, sure, they are not technology, as they obviously do not fit your definition. In which case, our conversation stops. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, if you've any interest and continuing the conversation either with me, with someone else, or even with yourself of your past or your future, it is very interesting, and dare I say important, to consider a broader definition of the concept. Then, you can categorize subspecifics as things like "electronic technology" or equipment and industrial tools and ideas. To which, I might be surprised that people still use things like scythes or Morse code (and not just hobbyists or conspiracy theorists, either).

Doing so, allows you to ask such questions as: "what role does technology play in society?", "Why do we stop using certain technologies?", "What technologies are needed?", or even "Am I technology?"

It defines the limits of your existence and helps you have a greater understanding of yourself, others, history, the future, and the universe. I would not shame you for being disinterested in those things, but I would be genuinely surprised if you were truly disinterested.

As a side note, I want to express my disdain for the short-format forum-thread comments that are so prone to snap-back clever quips based upon warped semantics and appealing to the audience. Too often, semantics disagreements or even strategic rhetoric stand in the way of useful discussion. It's entirely about the semantics. And while that may be a tangent from OPs surface intention, I would argue that a deeper discussion of society and communication would be welcome and more interesting and important. Again though, it's not for everyone; some people just want videos of cats. I just.... I need more depth and maybe this is all misplaced. If so, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to derail this hard.