In this blog post, we’ll examine whether technology is truly value-neutral and explore whose responsibility it is for the resulting consequences—the people who create the technology or the people who use it.
We live surrounded by various technologies. Look around you. Right now, near me are a TV, laptop, smartphone, digital watch, phone charger, and more. None of these things originated naturally; they are inventions developed by people. And all these inventions were created through technology. It’s hard to deny that inventions made possible by technology have enriched our lives. However, as science advances, some technologies become so powerful they pose a threat to humanity. In fact, countless inventions have led to devastating consequences. For example, in 1970, the atomic bomb in Hiroshima caused approximately 50,000 casualties, with 30,000 fatalities. Abortion technology has enabled the termination of unborn fetuses based on human decision. Bacteria created in biologists’ laboratories have been used as biochemical weapons, becoming lethal instruments of mass destruction. Anthrax is a prime example. For these reasons, people have become deeply troubled by ‘technology’. Can technology truly be judged by its value? At the root of this conflict lies the following question: Does the responsibility for technology’s impact lie with the technology itself, or with the people who use it? I believe technology cannot exist purely on its own. In other words, technology is not value-neutral.
First, technology cannot exist without purpose. Technology is not a ‘discovery’ but an ‘invention,’ and invention begins with ‘necessity.’ Consider these examples: the telephone was invented for the purpose of communication in situations where speaking in person was impossible. The light bulb was invented to illuminate dark nights for the purpose of ‘seeing,’ and the chair was invented for the purpose of sitting comfortably. This is not all. Look around, and you’ll see that most objects were created by technology, and you’ll realize that each was created for a specific purpose. In other words, technology is not spontaneous. Purpose exists before technology. And as long as there is purpose, value judgments about that purpose are inevitable. Even those who claim technology is value-neutral would acknowledge that technology inherently contains purpose. However, they think the sequence of existence between purpose and technology is different. In other words, they argue that technology exists in its own form, and that it is the purpose for which the technology is used that distinguishes good from evil. Therefore, they believe technology is innocent, and that full responsibility lies with the person who sets the purpose. But can technology be free from purpose? Technology is born from purpose. Therefore, technology cannot be free from purpose, and I believe the claim that technology is innocent is a contradiction.
Second, no two technologies are the same under the sky. Those who advocate for value neutrality say that the value of a technology is defined by how it is used according to a person’s purpose. For example, dynamite is a technology used for the purpose of creating tunnels during construction, but its essence is merely ‘the technology of detonation’; using it as a lethal weapon is the decision of the person employing the technology. But is the ‘technology of detonation’ truly identical when used to blast a mountain versus when used as a lethal weapon? No, it is not. Regardless of the purpose for which a technology is developed, new technologies inevitably emerge during its refinement and application. In such cases, technology may appear value-neutral. However, the process of refining and advancing that technology to suit one’s own purposes inevitably gives birth to new technologies. Dynamite used as a lethal weapon cannot be entirely identical to conventional dynamite. That is, dynamite used as a lethal weapon and dynamite used to create tunnels are distinctly different technologies. Therefore, dynamite used as a lethal weapon was also created as a new technology tailored to its purpose. This is not an exception to the first argument mentioned earlier.
Ultimately, unless a technology is conceived with inherently malicious intent from the outset, numerous problems arise during the process of refining and advancing existing technologies. In truth, from the inventor’s perspective, it is extremely difficult to predict how a technology will be repurposed or the magnitude of impact the reborn technology will have. Furthermore, excessively fearing the future to the point of failing to develop currently necessary technologies is both inefficient and regrettable. Nevertheless, the process of considering its potential impact in advance is essential, making it an ironic and difficult task for those developing the technology.
In this process, the role of scientists is crucial. Ultimately, scientists are the primary developers of technology, and because they understand it better than the general public, they can make more insightful predictions. Therefore, scientists must take responsibility for how technology is used.
Considering what scientists should do specifically, first, they must exercise caution when technology could cause excessive physical or chemical changes. Such technology has the potential for greater impact than minor innovations like chairs or watches, making it more susceptible to misuse. Once vigilant, scientists must then establish boundaries for how far the technology should be developed. That is, they must analyze at which stage in the technology’s development process it could have a critical impact. I believe this process is the most crucial responsibility for scientists. As mentioned earlier, blocking technological research simply because a technology has the potential for misuse is highly inefficient. Every technology in the world carries the potential for misuse. While some risks may seem significant, the possibility of unexpected misuse is also undeniable. Therefore, halting technological research solely because of its potential for misuse is foolish. The crucial point is to set limits on how existing technology is processed. For example, cloning technology enables genetic surgery, making it vital for treating incurable diseases. Therefore, while the development of cloning technology should be permitted, research that goes beyond the genome to graft onto the ‘individual’ itself must be strongly restricted. Setting these upper limits must be done by scientists, who understand the technology better than anyone else, and based on these limits, legal sanctions can be established.
Furthermore, scientists must monitor how existing scientific research progresses through associations or gatherings. This process is crucial because, first, discussions with scientists outside the technology research field allow for broader consideration of the technology’s impact and ripple effects. Additionally, it enables vigilance against research with dangerous purposes while simultaneously guarding against ‘purpose-less’ research. In other words, it allows the significance of the technology to be validated by others. I believe this aspect is crucial. As mentioned in the first argument, technology is researched and developed based on purpose. However, some technology can be researched ‘without purpose’. Examples include combining the genes of various organisms out of a researcher’s curiosity, or creating chemically engineered bacteria. Such research, lacking a specific purpose, can proceed without anticipating its outcomes, potentially leading to unmanageable consequences. This is akin to how random killings or assaults are among the most challenging crimes for detectives to solve. If scientists’ research were reviewed through associations or similar bodies, the likelihood of preventing such dangerous outcomes before they materialize would increase significantly.
It took humanity 5,000 years to master fire. Within a century of developing aviation technology, humans created aircraft capable of supersonic flight. Recently, smart wear has been developed less than a decade after the smartphone’s emergence. The pace of human civilization’s advancement is accelerating, and within this rapid development lies the risk of insufficient scrutiny. Furthermore, as technological capabilities surpass human intellect (as evidenced by AlphaGo’s victory over humans in artificial intelligence), public wariness toward technology and fears of its potential misuse are growing. As we increasingly live in a technology-intensive society, the argument of technology’s value neutrality in development is expected to become an even hotter potato. I acknowledge that technology is not value-neutral. However, I cannot agree with sanctioning all technology that might potentially carry harmful values. I do not wish to hinder the societal trend of increasingly enhanced technology. Therefore, I believe the most ideal scenario is for scientists to responsibly set upper limits on technological research, thereby developing technologies that are genuinely useful for our lives.
