posted 2 hours ago
I'm currently working on an essay where I spell this out in more detail, but the abbreviated version is below, and I wanted to run it by y'all since many here have thought deeply about technology:
1. Of all the definitions of technology I've come across, none have seemed quite right to me.
2. My definition: "Technology is intention applied to environment".
3. By "environment" I don't just mean the external physical environment: it can be an internal emotional or neurological environment, an intellectual or conceptual environment, a social environment, and so on.
4. Most technologies exist across multiple environments. This is what has made technology so hard to define.
5. Intentionality, despite being non-binary, is an effective way to delineate technology from non-technology, no matter the context.
6. Intentionality also means that technology is not created unless something possessing and capable of applying intention is involved. (This matches a broadly held intuition about technology.)
7. My definition also implies a basic ethical principle: if applying intention to environment transforms part of the environment into technology, then lack of intention can transform technology into part of the environment. This means if we don't want technology to be in control of us (to just be a background part of our environment), it's up to us to practice intentionality with its creation and use. (This maps to the Permies concept of "appropriate technology", as well as the fact of this concept having been thought up/operationalized by Permies!)
1
