[ansc]

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I disagree a whole lot. The whole problem is that is it inevitable. Technology is an enormous organism. It does not care about the ethical or moral considerations of it. It's a tug-of-war who can use most technique to succeed -- if you do not use it, you fall behind. Individuals absolutely can not shape the future of technology. States can attempt, but as they make use of technology for propaganda and similar reasons -- they are also in a requirement of it. It is inevitable as long as you keep digging.

[layer8]

Technology does nothing without humans enacting it, and humans do care about its ethical and moral considerations. Or at least some do, and everyone should. Individuals do collectively shape the future of technology.

[ansc]

I wish that was true. Not adopting technology carries penalties. Almost always enough for it to be a requirement.

Even so, "humans do care about its ethical and moral considerations": whose ethics? enforced how? measured how? you're going to fight efficiency and functionality? good luck.

[yawpitch]

> Technology is a living organism.

Oh my, the shear number of philosophers, biologists, ethicists, and, for that matter, bacterium rotating in their graves.

Life might be a technology… many technologies are not only not-living, they’re mutually contradictory with life.

[ansc]

A bit mean-spirited I think, but not unreasonable. organism: "a system or organization consisting of interdependent parts, compared to a living being". I removed the "living" part of it to allow for a bit more... abstract thinking.