Lacking impressive, durable teeth, serious strength, small, fit into tiny spaces size and a host of capabilities other animals easily rely upon we can't survive without tools and all tools are technology; even the simplest.
No one is a technophobe. Some people are attracted to one technosphere over another (some people would be comfortable in the technworld of 1922, others 1770's and so on) and are deeply frustrated there's little choice available.
The citizens of ancient Ur used technology as, of course, do we. Needless to say, there are significant differences between then and now.
Some technologies are more powerful, more destructive or more totalizing than others. It's the totalizing, inescapable nature of our technologies that sets them apart from what the ancients used and disturbs many of us. I imagine that a citizen of Ur, merely by walking outside of the city's gates and trekking to a different community, could easily have moved from one technosphere to another.
We don't have this option, the do-it-yourself dreams of commune dwellers notwithstanding.
If there are two neighboring countries: one of whom depends upon superb horsemanship and Roman era mettalurgy for national defense while the other relies upon Panzer divisions, dive bombers and machine guns the outcome of any military conflict between them is easy to predict.
And yet, both could fairly be described as "technological societies". One happens to possess a more devastatingly effective tool set. This makes all the difference.
We needn't use military analogies. The same comparison of technological capabilities can apply to production techniques, medicine, a wide range of pursuits. In each case, the group or society with the more totalizing tools -- tools that give their users, if not always an "advance" in the good-better-best sense, a larger impact -- overwhelms whatever situation they're in (one reason to be thankful visits by hyper advanced extraterrestrials remains a fantasy).
Seen from this angle, the appeal of cutting edge techniques to elites in general and military elites in particular is easy to understand. They know that powerful tools help in the establishment and maintainence of dominance (for ex: the Pentagon's F-22 fighter program is explicity described as an aviation technology weapons platform designed to preserve US fearsomeness well into the 21st century).
...
Now, we (or at least, some of us) would like to see greater democratic,
popular control over these powerful techniques. An impact assessment and use analysis. "Do we need this?" "If so, where do we need this most?" These are the kinds of questions that, in our dreams, an educated populace would collectively consider.
We (or at least, some of us) would like to slow things down take a breath and decide, together, whether truly powerful tools like DNA manipulation, ubiquitous networks, machine augmentation of human abilities and nanoscale manufacturing are needed, helpful and good.
And I agree with this, technophile though I am.
But I note that humanity's bigger problem -- bigger than the question of whether or not, or how, to go about modifying our genome (a big question if ever there was one) -- is how best to organize ourselves to do the best for the most people possible.
We haven't figured this organizational, cooperative problem out yet. The solution eludes us despite centuries of effort.
So, while it may come to pass that, say, Finland decides to slow down, S. Korea may not agree. So, S. Korea unleashes a modification that has an impact across the globe.
Insert your own favorite countries; the names don't matter. No discussion of technological impact is complete without an acknowledgement of the fact that what's rejected in one place will most likely be adopted elsewhere. From there, it will spread, as these things tend to do.
Since we're tool making animals and our tools tend to become more powerful over time and ideas tend to mutate and move from person to person like viruses, this seems like an inevitable part of being human.
This doesn't mean we must have F-22s and DNA re-sequencers but we shouldn't act as if these things are only the result of our minds going "off-track" or a lamentable flight from nature.
This is our nature. But natural certainly isn't always good.
.d.
---
When I hear the words 'Arts Council' I reach for my water-pistol.
Ian Hamilton Finlay