4 interpretations of determinism thesis:

1. Mcluhan: development of tech is inevitable.

2. All tech is necessarily created; that a tech is invented is inevitable

3. Heidegger: not technology but technological thinking. It states that this way of thinking has taken over
all domains of society, to such an extent that today we cannot look at things in any other way than the
instrumental way

4. Heilbroner: connection between technology and society. Not everything we do today is determined
by devices or the platforms of Google and Amazon, but technology does determine interpersonal
relationships and social processes.

Def of determine: by ‘to determine’ you refer to a relation between two things, more precisely to a
causal relation e.g. The way you live determines your health: it has an effect on your health, an effect
that may or may not be positive. This is incomplete...BETTER DEF: It means that a state *inevitably*
leads to a certain effect; that effect must follow from that state; the cause guarantees the effect.

determinism thesis is about the technological variant. This thesis implies that technological
advancements have the power to bring about certain outcomes or changes in society, and that these
outcomes are inevitable or unavoidable. It suggests that technology has a deterministic influence on
how society evolves, and that it plays a crucial role in determining the direction and nature of social
progress.

Not only is the claim that technology necessarily has this or that social effect an example of this, but also
the theory that deals with the instrumental thinking that characterizes our time

Interpretation 3 - Heidegger:

It was not enough for most philosophers to determine what something is. They also thought about
something that transcends everything else, that is, something that justifies everything else. Throughout
history, that has usually been God. Heidegger wanted to radically break with this type of reflection

The question Heidegger therefore put forward is not what something is, but how something is. In his
view, the core task of philosophy is not to look for an essence, but for existence. it's about
understanding how people live and what it means to be human.

Technological imperative:

good part of our everyday doings is not guided by explicit reflection, but by a spontaneous
understanding of reality.

If in the pre-modern era everything was understood in a religious sense, now we look at things from a
technological sense, that we conceive of reality in technological terms. We consider things in the world
as tools to accomplish our projects, satisfy our desires, meet milestones. Thinking in terms of utility is
what characterizes our modern age. Nature is instrumentalized as well. Coal serves industry, wind is
used to generate electricity, etc. We can now understand nature only as a means, and not as something
that has value in itself. Heidegger’s philosophy of technology is about the proliferation of the imperative
of utility thinking.
Heidegger’s technological determinism can therefore be formulated as follows. Our culture is governed
by a technological way of thinking – that is the cause. The consequence, then, is that we moderns
inevitably think in terms of means and ends, and can only look at the world in those terms. Heidegger
says that our obsession with thinking instrumentally is not because we're surrounded by technology. It's
actually the other way around. We think everything in terms of utility and that's why we keep inventing
more and more technologies.

Opposition to heidegger:

1. has to do with the persuasiveness of the arguments. If you go back to def of determinism, there
should be an inevitable causal relationship, and this is not really met with his arguments. no sufficient
reasons are given to conclude that technological determinism is correct and he should've provided a
firmer foundation to defend his argument.

2. more than one case that contradicts Heidegger’s analysis. We are not condemned to instrumentalism;
another view is possible. Heidegger’s analysis is thus insufficiently nuanced, speaks in too coarse terms,
and overlooks the differences that are nevertheless obvious. It kinda underplays the individual agency of
humans. People play, have hobbies, conduct fundamental research or take care of each other without it
being a means to an end. There is more than one person – and perhaps it is true of the vast majority –
who cares for the sake of the person, and that suffices as an argument against Heidegger’s determinism.

Actually, technology and non-instrumentalism can coexist: e.g. medical devices are a means of caring for
others. But they fit into the framework of a non-instrumental approach to others. This being said, are we
to infer that it is impossible to understand the world in purely instrumental terms? No. This is evident,
among other things, in how we treat many technologies like our laptop.

Heidegger also says that the dominance of such an instumental gaze is undesirable...but like when
someone is hired to reorganize the company, that person does become instrumentalized, but there is
nothing problematic with it. And what would be wrong with people seeing plants as things that serve to
make the living room attractive?

for this, Heidegger says it's not wrong to view things instrumentally, as long as it's not exclusively
instrumentally. But he gives no arguments for his claim why a purely instrumental view is wrong in all
cases. For example, we do not know why he disapproves of seeing things like drills and cars only as
means...

prof conclusion: the claim that our thinking is solely determined by technology is incorrect. Even if
Heidegger's viewpoint is considered, he does not explain why a technological perspective would be
undesirable in all cases, including coal or technology itself. While there may be valid reasons to reject a
purely technological view, the arguments presented by others in relation to technology and AI are not
deemed sufficient. The concerns that an exclusively instrumental view of technology could lead to
dehumanizing views are also seen as uncertain and not necessarily justified.

Interpretation 1 and 2:

Technology, in that case, is a necessary consequence of something, without specifying exactly what
caused it. There are two versions here: One version focuses on the origin of technology, stating that all
technology is necessary. The other version focuses on the evolution of technology, stating that
technology inevitably leads to the development of other technologies. The latter version implies that
certain technologies are necessary because they are the natural progression from earlier technologies,
while the former version claims that all technology is inevitable and necessary Both when talking about
the emergence of technology and when talking about its evolution, it is claimed that technology will
come in all cases. Whereas it was once God who eluded the grasp of the people, now it is technology
that transcends human control.

Some defend determinism about the origin and evolution of technology because they want to defend
themselves against criticism of the technology they have developed. The reasoning then goes like this: if
I design a technology, a technology that was going to exist anyway, then I cannot be held morally
responsible for the negative consequences that may arise from the use of that technology.

Interpretation 4 - Heilbroner:

The fourth version of the determinism thesis states that all technology inevitably has social effects.
These effects would occur regardless of the context in which the technology is introduced. This view
focuses on the consequences of technology rather than the technology itself. It is similar to the
disruption thesis, which claims that AI is a disruptive technology, but the focus here is specifically on
social effects.

Distinction from Disruption Thesis: While both the determinism thesis and the disruption thesis focus on
technology's consequences, there are differences between them. The disruption thesis mainly refers to
the economic impact of AI, while the determinism thesis focuses exclusively on social effects.
Additionally, whether the social effects are disruptive or not is not essential in the determinism thesis.

Linking Interpretations: The interpretations of social effects, origins, and evolution of technology are
often linked together, but they can be considered separately. The idea of social impact may seem to
naturally follow from the inevitability of technological development, but it's possible to imagine a world
where technologies succeed each other without significant social impact or where technology has social
effects without being inevitable.

These interpretations should be discussed separately in theory, although they are often linked in
practice. It is important to examine whether technologies have inevitable and social effects, as assuming
that the reasons for one interpretation apply to the others is not justified.