Secularization Comes for the Religion of Technology: Or, how to make sense of techno-optimist manifestos, the Open Ai/Altman affair, EA/e-acc movements, and the general sense of cultural stagnation
Secularization Comes for the Religion of Technology: Or, how to make sense of techno-optimist manifestos, the Open Ai/Altman affair, EA/e-acc movements, and the general sense of cultural stagnation
One of the most enduringly influential techno-utopianists is probably Walt Disney. Disney World's attendance numbers rival any World's Fair, and particularly EPCOT (Disney's "experimental prototype city of tomorrow") operates as a kind of year-round eternal world's fair, with a gallery of nation-pavilions, and exhibits and rides centered on science and technology... and of course, its center piece, the "giant golf ball" that houses Spaceship Earth is a "ride" that takes one through a particular version of the history of technology and implies a very positive trajectory for the future. But even setting EPCOT aside, the whole Disney enterprise seems to be to define the bounds of normalcy, establish entertainment-based "shared meaning" for the masses, and promise a future of increased ease, acquisition and amusement -- Vegas for the rest of us. Your essay makes me think that I should set my criticisms of Disney aside and appreciate the service to society -- by giving us *anything* to collectively believe in, we end up in a less chaotic state?
Thank you for this fascinating essay. It’s given me a lot of food for thought.
At times I was having difficulty with what you meant by the religion of technology – this is probably partly due to my not having read those books you mention. I think I have a very particular set of ideas I associate with the concept of ‘religion’ which I couldn’t fully locate in the concept of ‘the religion of technology.’ But I suppose when considered from the angle of ‘faith’ the religiosity becomes apparent – in the examples you mentioned, the world fairs and so on, there was faith, almost blind faith in fact, that technology was a (nearly mystical) uplifting force that would ‘deliver us from evil’ towards a better (fairer, purer, utopian) future.
And so what we’re experiencing now (and repeatedly through history whenever societies experience a shock) is a loss of faith (or what you’re calling a process of secularisation) – if I’m understanding correctly?
To use the analogy of global finance – people have had ‘faith’ in the markets and economic rationalism; they’ve had faith that the financial system will beautifully and magically self-correct as needed – and then there is a shock like the GFC which results in a loss of faith. It brings the whole thing out of the realm of the gods and down into into the realm of the human. There is an abrupt recognition that the financial system is not some perfect preternatural mathematical system but an unwieldy behemoth made by flawed humans and as such must be repaired by flawed humans and effortfully intervened with and redirected according to our values and beliefs.
It's the same with technology, I think. We have the rise of the digital economy, Big Tech, cryptocurrency, AI, etc, all of which can breed a sort of complacent faith in positive progress. And then there are shocks. The rise of surveillance capitalism, the SBF FTX scandal and so on. And those shocks result in a loss of faith. And the loss of faith, I think, results in a recognition that technology does not automatically fall ‘upwards’ towards the good and the just but must be, as above, effortfully intervened with and redirected according to our values and beliefs.
Forgive my waffling! I am probably misunderstanding. But very interesting. Thank you again.
"And when I hear tell of a new Utopia, I'll be looking for the mass graves", said someone who'd seen them. Or, if not literal, then the figurative walking dead, following the fascination of their little dark mirrors. Techno-progress races ahead, and yet, still the glaciers melt. Still the un-housed gather in greater number on the steps of the library here.
Great essay. Thought provoking how you equate the current moment to the Reformation period for technology. The splintering of a once monolithic religious force. Never looked at it that way before.
There is an intellectual history of mechanised intelligence, as well as that of the wisdom traditions. Can I give a shout-out to the work of Jeremy Naydler? I have recently attempted at my start-up substack a review of J. Naydler, 2018; 'In the shadow of the Machine', 'The Prehistory of the Computer and the Evolution of Consciousness'. (Apologies. I am afraid it is more 'me' than Jeremy's very useful careful history). The mechanisation of what we term intelligence follows from the 'hands on' mechanisation of logic. I throw into the present discussion, consideration of the hybrid practice of 'participation' that can provide intelligible 'knowledge', in the way of 'wisdom' (or something else). I suggest that modern participation has arrived very differently via 'mechanism'. 'Mechanism' is at the heart of this outbreak of endeavours that we term 'scientific'; we 'make' experiments as well as engineer marvels. We are not remotely computers, but pretend we might as well be, and hybridise? There are different cultural backgrounds round the planet that might handle complexity better?
This is an interesting subject to ponder. I think about it a lot. And there are some compelling things in this article you reference, as well as in your analysis of it.
I agree that addiction is a loaded word, and one which may not fit the bill in every instance it is used. And I often think about the difference between compulsion, addiction, avoidance, and routine. All of these come into play in this culture.
One thing this technological society has created are multiple pockets and flows of possibility: possibility to find information, people, a new job, mood, or path forward in life. So while many of us may go to the social media feeds for avoidance or distraction, we also frequently go there for expedition. We go in search of change or possibility or an unexpected turn of fate.
(It may seem strange to imply that someone can go *searching* for something *unexpected* since searching seems like such an intentional activity. But in this case, I mean it more like searching for a sign or a clue for where to go next. We dip in and out of these streams of information and interaction, hoping to stumble upon some chance tidbit that will turn things around one way or another for us.)
It is a strange mix of agency and openness and being stuck in a cycle. It feels very similar to the feeling when you have a little bit of extra time to fill in between appointments, and so you stop at a store even though you don't really have anything you're certain that you need. And you wander the aisles and items start to look appealing to you - not because you need them or want them, but because you can think of things you might do with them. It's the same kind of influence from targeted marketing (like commercials and ads), but on a bigger scale.
Just like when advertising strategies switched from trying to sell people *products* to trying to sell people *feelings* or *possibility*, this is how the technological age feels to me in a bigger way. We are not only being sold possibility and feelings in product advertisements, but our whole society is shifting more and more to keep us in a state of believing we are just at the cusp of finding something that - once we unexpectedly identify it or encounter it - will turn everything around for us. And ironically, this is what keeps us going back to the very platforms and spaces and mechanisms that keep us in indefinite loops.
I have found many good things in these places, and have connected with many good people. My world has been changed, in many ways for the better, because of ideas and connections that have grown out of these feeds at times. Still, it feels daunting.
Whether or not it is specifically dopamine always bringing us back each time, it does respond each time, whether or not we understand how. It is really difficult to untangle these elements, as they are all intertwined with so many other things.
But the question you ask in this installment about what are researching for - my thought is that it is very general. At any given moment, we might each be searching for a specific piece of information or person or something we can name. But in the bigger sense, I feel like we are all in an indefinite loop of looking for possibility. And since we don't know what form that might take, it keeps us coming back. And I suspect, for myself anyway, that the feeling of possibility probably creates the most intense dopamine response in my brain. But that's just one theory.
I really appreciate this post. I would love to read more of your thoughts on the mystical sects and true believers, since so many of them exist at the top of the silicon valley food chain and are hugely influential.
Thank you for another provocative note, L.M. Reading it reminded me of an essay from Achille Mbembe that feels like it is in direct conversation with what you've put forward here. Like most of his work it has a depth that defies a simple quote, but this section touches on this theme of the religion of technology:
"Technology now tends to take on all the attributes of religious thought, of magical or animistic reason, as well as of aesthetic activity. Until relatively recently, it was presumed that the artificial object made humans more remote from the real world. Now the artificial object is a vector of potential fusion with it, since the world itself has become artificial. Hence, to inhabit the world means to engage uninterruptedly with matter, forms, and objects. It means immersion in sensible existence, in a direct relationship with the world—a relationship without mediation, one that is consciously material and objectal. This integral participation in the life of objects and matter, this fundamental adherence to the law of utility, means that contemporary humans live in relative co-naturality with technology. The corollary of this lack of mediation between the human and the material world is the exhaustion of symbolic reserves. Technology comes to fill the vacuum thus created. Doing so, it seizes hold of the functions formerly assigned to transcendence, donning a timelessness that establishes it as one of the last universal religions. This religion, however, unlike the classical ones, is Godless."
- From The Earthly Community: Reflections on the Last Utopia
It’s not exactly aligned with the ideas you represent, but the case studies in it feel like good examples of the transition you discussed in which the religious center of gravity shifts from Christianity to technology.
One of the most enduringly influential techno-utopianists is probably Walt Disney. Disney World's attendance numbers rival any World's Fair, and particularly EPCOT (Disney's "experimental prototype city of tomorrow") operates as a kind of year-round eternal world's fair, with a gallery of nation-pavilions, and exhibits and rides centered on science and technology... and of course, its center piece, the "giant golf ball" that houses Spaceship Earth is a "ride" that takes one through a particular version of the history of technology and implies a very positive trajectory for the future. But even setting EPCOT aside, the whole Disney enterprise seems to be to define the bounds of normalcy, establish entertainment-based "shared meaning" for the masses, and promise a future of increased ease, acquisition and amusement -- Vegas for the rest of us. Your essay makes me think that I should set my criticisms of Disney aside and appreciate the service to society -- by giving us *anything* to collectively believe in, we end up in a less chaotic state?
Thank you for this fascinating essay. It’s given me a lot of food for thought.
At times I was having difficulty with what you meant by the religion of technology – this is probably partly due to my not having read those books you mention. I think I have a very particular set of ideas I associate with the concept of ‘religion’ which I couldn’t fully locate in the concept of ‘the religion of technology.’ But I suppose when considered from the angle of ‘faith’ the religiosity becomes apparent – in the examples you mentioned, the world fairs and so on, there was faith, almost blind faith in fact, that technology was a (nearly mystical) uplifting force that would ‘deliver us from evil’ towards a better (fairer, purer, utopian) future.
And so what we’re experiencing now (and repeatedly through history whenever societies experience a shock) is a loss of faith (or what you’re calling a process of secularisation) – if I’m understanding correctly?
To use the analogy of global finance – people have had ‘faith’ in the markets and economic rationalism; they’ve had faith that the financial system will beautifully and magically self-correct as needed – and then there is a shock like the GFC which results in a loss of faith. It brings the whole thing out of the realm of the gods and down into into the realm of the human. There is an abrupt recognition that the financial system is not some perfect preternatural mathematical system but an unwieldy behemoth made by flawed humans and as such must be repaired by flawed humans and effortfully intervened with and redirected according to our values and beliefs.
It's the same with technology, I think. We have the rise of the digital economy, Big Tech, cryptocurrency, AI, etc, all of which can breed a sort of complacent faith in positive progress. And then there are shocks. The rise of surveillance capitalism, the SBF FTX scandal and so on. And those shocks result in a loss of faith. And the loss of faith, I think, results in a recognition that technology does not automatically fall ‘upwards’ towards the good and the just but must be, as above, effortfully intervened with and redirected according to our values and beliefs.
Forgive my waffling! I am probably misunderstanding. But very interesting. Thank you again.
"And when I hear tell of a new Utopia, I'll be looking for the mass graves", said someone who'd seen them. Or, if not literal, then the figurative walking dead, following the fascination of their little dark mirrors. Techno-progress races ahead, and yet, still the glaciers melt. Still the un-housed gather in greater number on the steps of the library here.
Great essay. Thought provoking how you equate the current moment to the Reformation period for technology. The splintering of a once monolithic religious force. Never looked at it that way before.
There is an intellectual history of mechanised intelligence, as well as that of the wisdom traditions. Can I give a shout-out to the work of Jeremy Naydler? I have recently attempted at my start-up substack a review of J. Naydler, 2018; 'In the shadow of the Machine', 'The Prehistory of the Computer and the Evolution of Consciousness'. (Apologies. I am afraid it is more 'me' than Jeremy's very useful careful history). The mechanisation of what we term intelligence follows from the 'hands on' mechanisation of logic. I throw into the present discussion, consideration of the hybrid practice of 'participation' that can provide intelligible 'knowledge', in the way of 'wisdom' (or something else). I suggest that modern participation has arrived very differently via 'mechanism'. 'Mechanism' is at the heart of this outbreak of endeavours that we term 'scientific'; we 'make' experiments as well as engineer marvels. We are not remotely computers, but pretend we might as well be, and hybridise? There are different cultural backgrounds round the planet that might handle complexity better?
This is an interesting subject to ponder. I think about it a lot. And there are some compelling things in this article you reference, as well as in your analysis of it.
I agree that addiction is a loaded word, and one which may not fit the bill in every instance it is used. And I often think about the difference between compulsion, addiction, avoidance, and routine. All of these come into play in this culture.
One thing this technological society has created are multiple pockets and flows of possibility: possibility to find information, people, a new job, mood, or path forward in life. So while many of us may go to the social media feeds for avoidance or distraction, we also frequently go there for expedition. We go in search of change or possibility or an unexpected turn of fate.
(It may seem strange to imply that someone can go *searching* for something *unexpected* since searching seems like such an intentional activity. But in this case, I mean it more like searching for a sign or a clue for where to go next. We dip in and out of these streams of information and interaction, hoping to stumble upon some chance tidbit that will turn things around one way or another for us.)
It is a strange mix of agency and openness and being stuck in a cycle. It feels very similar to the feeling when you have a little bit of extra time to fill in between appointments, and so you stop at a store even though you don't really have anything you're certain that you need. And you wander the aisles and items start to look appealing to you - not because you need them or want them, but because you can think of things you might do with them. It's the same kind of influence from targeted marketing (like commercials and ads), but on a bigger scale.
Just like when advertising strategies switched from trying to sell people *products* to trying to sell people *feelings* or *possibility*, this is how the technological age feels to me in a bigger way. We are not only being sold possibility and feelings in product advertisements, but our whole society is shifting more and more to keep us in a state of believing we are just at the cusp of finding something that - once we unexpectedly identify it or encounter it - will turn everything around for us. And ironically, this is what keeps us going back to the very platforms and spaces and mechanisms that keep us in indefinite loops.
I have found many good things in these places, and have connected with many good people. My world has been changed, in many ways for the better, because of ideas and connections that have grown out of these feeds at times. Still, it feels daunting.
Whether or not it is specifically dopamine always bringing us back each time, it does respond each time, whether or not we understand how. It is really difficult to untangle these elements, as they are all intertwined with so many other things.
But the question you ask in this installment about what are researching for - my thought is that it is very general. At any given moment, we might each be searching for a specific piece of information or person or something we can name. But in the bigger sense, I feel like we are all in an indefinite loop of looking for possibility. And since we don't know what form that might take, it keeps us coming back. And I suspect, for myself anyway, that the feeling of possibility probably creates the most intense dopamine response in my brain. But that's just one theory.
I really appreciate this post. I would love to read more of your thoughts on the mystical sects and true believers, since so many of them exist at the top of the silicon valley food chain and are hugely influential.
Thank you for another provocative note, L.M. Reading it reminded me of an essay from Achille Mbembe that feels like it is in direct conversation with what you've put forward here. Like most of his work it has a depth that defies a simple quote, but this section touches on this theme of the religion of technology:
"Technology now tends to take on all the attributes of religious thought, of magical or animistic reason, as well as of aesthetic activity. Until relatively recently, it was presumed that the artificial object made humans more remote from the real world. Now the artificial object is a vector of potential fusion with it, since the world itself has become artificial. Hence, to inhabit the world means to engage uninterruptedly with matter, forms, and objects. It means immersion in sensible existence, in a direct relationship with the world—a relationship without mediation, one that is consciously material and objectal. This integral participation in the life of objects and matter, this fundamental adherence to the law of utility, means that contemporary humans live in relative co-naturality with technology. The corollary of this lack of mediation between the human and the material world is the exhaustion of symbolic reserves. Technology comes to fill the vacuum thus created. Doing so, it seizes hold of the functions formerly assigned to transcendence, donning a timelessness that establishes it as one of the last universal religions. This religion, however, unlike the classical ones, is Godless."
- From The Earthly Community: Reflections on the Last Utopia
Thanks for this, really compelling. It reminded me of this book by John Gray that I enjoyed long ago: https://www.amazon.com/Immortalization-Commission-Science-Strange-Quest/dp/0374533237
It’s not exactly aligned with the ideas you represent, but the case studies in it feel like good examples of the transition you discussed in which the religious center of gravity shifts from Christianity to technology.