and illuminating to take the widest possible angle -- the smartphone is the same kind of thing as language itself -- and (b) the modern computer is itself a really useful illustration of how "technology" is a fundamentally incoherent category to generalize about.
but idk. to take an example i think about a lot: on the one hand it's unproductive if not literally meaningless to say "the invention of photography was bad." but i also feel like the invention of photography was kind of bad. i love
photography and film as art forms and i think it's really beautiful as a means of documenting and creating experience, there's a parallel world where i'm a camera nerd or whatever. but the psychological and practical damage photography has done is also just incalculable. i genuinely don't really think we're equipped to conceive of ourselves in the way photography forces us to
i guess what i might really be saying is that if it's incoherent to say "photography is bad," not only is it incoherent
also to say that "photography is good" -- i am also a bit more affectively invested in the pessimistic reading. i try not to let this skew my judgement and it might be a manifestation of a fundamentally depressive temperament, but idk.
ultimately i think all i'm saying is that technology, for me, is a really clear instance of how difficult i find it to think about the imbrication of Good Things and Bad Things, and also the question of whether or not things have essences, or something? like,