I have discussed why machines and automation are not dehumanizing several times now. What I have missed, until now, is what things are dehumanizing. The time has come...
Machines and automation are not dehumanizing, because they are one of the ultimate expressions of humanity. The ability to build tools that work entirely on their own is one of the most important things that make humans unique. So, if machines are not dehumanizing, what things are?
Something is dehumanizing when it rejects the things that make humans unique among the life found on Earth. A great example is any form of primitivism. The idea that we should abandon modern technology and go "back to the land" is a popular form of dehumanization in some places. This movement boils down to the idea that humans should be less like humans and more like animals, which is the very definition of dehumanizing. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
Another form of dehumanization that is especially popular is the attempt to define the "correct" role of humans in the food chain. This includes the vegan and vegetarian movements, but it also includes people who go around bragging that they are "carnivores." The uniqueness of humans includes an incredibly high level of adaptability. Claiming that humans should or should not eat certain classes of food rejects a valuable element of that adaptability. Keep in mind that ancient American natives often spent the winters eating nothing but meat, because nothing else was available. At the same time, poor populations throughout history often ate little or no meat during certain seasons and famines. Humans have the ability to survive on very wide range of diets, and attempting to define and enforce dietary categories qualifies as dehumanizing.
Humans are good at a wide variety of things. Most of the uniqueness of humans comes from our ability to innovate and adapt. We have made an enormous number of innovations to allow ourselves to adapt to a wide range of conditions. As the human population on Earth is continuously increasing, we are beginning to predict things like resource shortages. We are already doing many things to prepare for this, despite the fact that it is clear we are not much closer to serious overpopulation than we were during the scares of the '60s and '70s (and several much earlier ones as well). Our farming technology has advanced extremely rapidly over the last several centuries, and there is little sign of slowing. Our industrial farming techniques, while unsustainable and destructive, allow a tiny portion of the U.S. population to produce five times as much food as we eat. More sustainable hydroponics have become viable enough that you can find hydroponically grown fruits and vegetables in some grocery stores. Genetic engineering has allowed us to reduce crop losses to pests and weeds, and it is promising more flavorful, healthier fruits and vegetables within the next decade or so. This ability to adapt, all the way down to editing genes to improve our food, is very uniquely human. There are movements against all of these things though. We have the organic food movement attacking industrial farming and hydroponics. We have the anti-GMO crowd attacking directly improving foods by altering their genetics. This is what is dehumanizing. These movements are rejecting the very things that make us human.
Another serious effort at dehumanization is the anti-vax movement. Yes, in the past there have been potential problems with vaccines. For some very small groups even a subset of currently existing vaccines represent a potential for harm. The fact though, is that vaccines are not harmful in the least for a vast majority of people. Now, I generally recommend becoming informed (for real, not just reading anti-vax propaganda; informed means you learn from experts, not uneducated celebrities and quack journalists), and I am not rescinding that recommendation. Aside from these extremely small groups that vaccines pose potential risks for, the refusal of effective vaccines is another form of dehumanization.
In general, any "natural" movement is probably pushing an agenda that is dehumanizing. Yes, we should take responsibility for things like our health and keeping the Earth habitable for humans, but when someone says that something is better merely because it is natural, they are trying to dehumanize people. Artificial sweeteners might be unnatural, but a vast majority are less dangerous than excessive sugar intake. Artificial stimulants are often safer than natural ones. Nature has produced a very large number of deadly poisons, including some that can kill a person in anywhere from 30 seconds down to well under 1 second. In fact, even many of the worst illegal drugs come straight from plants, and most of those that don't are purer synthetic versions of the same substances from plants or very similar ones. Pushing "natural" products purely because they are natural is dehumanizing, because it rejects the ability of humans to transcend nature.
The fact is, humans are fantastically powerful beings, compared to the entire rest of Earth's population of living things. Our power lies in our ability to transcend the limitations of nature. When we question our ability to transcend nature, we deny our humanity. Humanity is at its most human when it is improving on nature. The further we deviate from nature, the more human and less natural we become, and this is a good thing, because it increases our ability to survive. When we arbitrarily reject the man made, that is what is dehumanizing.
No comments:
Post a Comment