I believe many people in this thread will appreciate these two clips from a wonderful, difficult film, The Ister: first, and second (there is some missing film in between the two. It’s absolutely worth acquiring the whole film.
The urgency of relating ethics to making, engineering, technology etc., expressed by several people in this thread, is overwhelming. I’m not sure if my asking about a definition of technology is directly relevant, but I’m generally concerned when a matter is treated as self evident (not to suggest that such is the case here). An example: a student once said to me, sarcastically, “Scissors are technology!?” (we were making collage with text). My answer was “very definitely yes”. My hope was to ignite discussion about the significance/s of making by working with the material of words and corresponding ideas. I thought beyond this that there can be a kind of violence to ideas when we (encourage students to) presume, for example, that technology is e.g. things that are plugged in. I’m particularly interested in the making of equipment, i.e. what was the first equipment in the history of our species (mens et manus)? My working definition is tethered to utility. (Do we include language in technology? Are ideas technology?) . Some other questions I ask: is documentation of making different than / less than story? How can or should narrative accompany making (esp relevant if we are trying to be ethical makers)? Can a narrative accompaniment “take over”, such that a physical or code artifact is derivative ? &cetera