23rd Aug 2024 Gemini 1.5 Pro
In this episode of the Buddhist Geeks podcast, Vincent Horn interviews Stephen Reid, a self-described “transdisciplinary technologist” about his upcoming course, Technological Metamodernism. The conversation explores the intersection of technology, values, and spirituality, advocating for a nuanced approach that transcends the simplistic “tech good” versus “tech bad” dichotomy.
The conversation begins with Reid’s background in the Dharma, particularly his study of the late Buddhist teacher Rob Burbea. Reid highlights Burbea’s unique approach to emptiness practice and the concept of “ways of looking,” which emphasizes the transformative power of perspective shifting. He connects this to metamodernism, a philosophical framework emphasizing synthesis and the integration of seemingly opposing viewpoints. Reid argues that Burbea’s emphasis on perspective aligns with metamodernism’s call to transcend and include multiple perspectives.
Reid sees a parallel between Burbea’s work on emptiness and soul-making dharma with metamodernism. He suggests that Burbea’s radical deconstruction of reality through emptiness practice reflects postmodern thought. At the same time, his soul-making dharma, which emphasizes imagination and personal myth-making, represents a reconstructive, metamodern move.
There’s something of a correspondence between Rob’s emptiness practices as being an extremely radical flavor of postmodernism, and then the soulmaking dharma as being the metamodern, reconstructive move.
The discussion then shifts to the current technological landscape, which Reid sees as caught between two extremes: techno-utopianism (effective accelerationism) and eco-dystopianism. He argues that while technological progress has brought undeniable benefits, an uncritical embrace of accelerationism, characterized by the belief that technology will inherently solve all our problems, is naive and potentially dangerous. He cites Daniel Schmachtenberger’s work on the dangers of unchecked technological advancement and the importance of considering the potential negative consequences.
However, Reid also rejects the opposite extreme of Luddism or eco-dystopianism, which views technology as inherently harmful and advocates for a return to simpler times. He sees this perspective as equally simplistic and advocates for a middle way, a metamodern approach that acknowledges both the benefits and risks of technology.
I guess I’m interested in what’s the ‘middle way’, to borrow a Buddhist phrase. Technological development at all costs, at a fast pace as possible, doesn’t seem right to me. I think you can make a very strong case about why that isn’t a good way to go. But nevertheless, I can’t deny my love for technology.
Drawing on Schmachtenberger’s work, Reid proposes “axiological design” as a potential solution. Axiological design emphasizes the integration of values into the design and implementation of technology. This approach recognizes that technology is not value-neutral but inherently reflects the values of its creators and the societal context in which it is developed.
Reid sees Vitalik Buterin’s concept of “decentralized, defensive, or differential accelerationism” (d/acc) as an early example of axiological design. Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, acknowledges the limitations of naive techno-optimism, particularly in light of climate change.
So [Vitalik] says, we need active human intention to choose the directions that we want as the formula of maximized profit will not arrive at them automatically.
Buterin advocates for accelerating specific “defensive” technologies prioritizing individual freedom and sovereignty. These include decentralized infrastructure (energy, food production), micro-defense (vaccine production), cyber defense (blockchain), and info defense (community notes).
While Reid finds Buterin’s d/acc promising, he also points out the need to balance individual sovereignty with communal values. He acknowledges the potential dangers of unchecked individualism and suggests exploring technologies that foster connection and community. He cites Horn’s work with Interbeing Inc., a company developing multiplayer meditation technologies, as an example of technology promoting relationality and well-being.
This leads to a discussion about open-source technology, which Reid sees as facing challenges. While advocating for open access, he also acknowledges that completely open sourcing technology can exacerbate existing problems by making powerful tools accessible to malicious actors. He proposes exploring alternative models that balance openness with values-based restrictions, potentially through the resurgence of guilds or communities that regulate access to knowledge and technology based on shared values and ethical commitments.
In closing, Reid emphasizes the power of imagination in shaping our technological future. He highlights the importance of science fiction, art, and design in exploring potential tech futures and challenging dominant narratives. He discusses “solarpunk” and “lunarpunk” as examples of speculative fiction genres that envision positive technological futures characterized by ecological sustainability and spiritual depth.
We build the tech features that we can imagine. And maybe even more important is the corollary, which is, we cannot build tech features that we cannot imagine.
Reid concludes by highlighting the potential of “reality-switch technologies” like psychedelics and advanced meditation techniques for exploring consciousness and their potential role in understanding and ethically developing artificial intelligence. He sees these practices as valuable tools for perturbing consciousness and expanding our understanding of its nature, potentially leading to technologies that are more aligned with our deepest values and aspirations.