I like to observe and reflect on my observations of society. One of the biggest changes. have noticed in society is the use of technology as a replacement for traditional modes of human communication. For example, I am a student and much of my studying and communication is conducted via assistive technology such as Zoom. This change is largely a consequence of the pandemic and lockdown. It raises all kinds of ethical problems relating to technological discrimination and so on. One of the biggest problems I have with using technology to communicate is that it attempts to blend all of society together, kind of like a homogenising force, and spread out all of humanity onto a flat disk, like spreading butter on a piece of bread...

To thinly spread out all of humanity this way has many consequences which are very subtle and not noticeable because they transcend the act of doing what the technology is designed to do, which is to facilitate communication, but that act of communication in this new style has many indirect consequences and the most obvious one I worry about most is ORIGINALITY... Communicating via technology is a further step towards the implementation of technology into human day to day life and society, as a consequence of the technological revolution, but this is not how humans have communication historically and I worry that it will have grave implications for the progression of humanity as a productive and creative species. For example, I would argue that by placing all of humanity onto a technological communicative structure such as online communication like social media / zoom and so on diminishes original communication, constraints the essence of creativity and formulation and discovery of new ideas, thoughts and ultimately is a block to individual progression and thus the progression of the human species.

For example, much of the discoveries in humanity come from the Renaissance and scientific revolution where there was no downward existential force constraining human communication at a human to human level, thus allowing human beings to thrive emotionally and be in that state of being able to create and derive new ideas. So... now we face, I would argue, the problem of technology being too assistive to communication in that it removes creativity at the sharp end and reduces the boundaries of human individual creativity between different groups of humans insofar that it homogenises what were once intrinsically different societies in social and cultural terms by removing the essence of creativity force. BUT it is this very creative ability which is often thought of as being too individualistic in a globalised word where racial and biological differences are simply social construct, not biological. It is not something which must be preserved or catered for in a globalising and homogenising society where humanity is assimilating with technology at the cost of losing this creativity originality.

So, humanity, while likely being increasingly technologically efficient, will not be as individually creative in the Renaissance sense of true creativity, but rather this sense of creativity will likely come from computer assisted and thus replicable algorithms insofar as to diminish and obscure individualism in society. In other words, using technology to communicate is bad for our species if creativity is to be valued and preserved, not just replicable creativity, but true essence of creativity which cannot be replicated by technology, but is good if you believe in the diminishment of individuality and personal expression. I guess human beings will be thought of as kind of like pieces of replicable code, which doesn't have that creative force, for that will be neutered by technology, and so communication will become more commodified and standardised and individual expression will be predictable and replicable in the sense that it prioritises emotional protection at a cost of limiting the creation of new ideas. Thoughts...?